ufs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns (UF names and acronyms) and its purpose, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format. It's adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could add more on output format or limitations to reach a 5.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Lista todas as Unidades Federativas') and resources ('estados do Brasil'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it provides UF data for validation or filtering deputies, unlike other tools focused on deputies, parties, or proposals.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use para validar siglas de UF ou obter a lista completa de estados ao filtrar deputados por região em buscar_deputados.' This provides clear alternatives (e.g., use for validation or filtering) and context for sibling tool integration.

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