Código do município

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the accent-insensitive matching behavior, which is genuinely useful, but it stays silent on ambiguity handling (multiple matches) despite exposing a limit parameter.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and ends with the downstream-use rationale. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a resolver that can plausibly return multiple candidates (hence the limit param), the description omits what happens on ambiguous or unmatched names, leaving a real gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so uf, name and limit are already documented in the schema. The description's note about accents duplicates the name parameter's own schema description rather than adding new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Encontra o código de um município a partir do nome') and adds the scope qualifier that accents are optional. It clearly reads as a resolver/lookup, distinguishable from the election-oriented siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

'para usar nas outras ferramentas' implies this is a prerequisite resolution step in a larger workflow, which is useful usage context. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative for looking up municipalities.

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