rank_neighborhoods_by_income

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data source (Censo 2022), adding some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects, nor does it describe the return format or any access restrictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second provides parameter usage. No unnecessary words or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite being a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of neighborhoods with income values or just names?). This omission leaves the agent uncertain about the output format, making it incomplete for decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining 'top' and 'bottom' for the order parameter (already described in the schema) and clarifying that limit defaults to 10. No additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool ranks neighborhoods in Natal by average monthly income of the household head from Censo 2022. It uses a specific verb ('ranqueia') and resource ('bairros de Natal pela renda...'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_neighborhood_income' which return a single value rather than a ranking.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage examples for the 'order' parameter ('top' for richest, 'bottom' for poorest), helping the agent understand how to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_neighborhood_income' or 'list_neighborhoods'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.