Documento para Deep Research

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 'live GET against the public source when the document needs it' (a network fetch with possible lazy retrieval) and the error-on-unknown-id behavior. It does restate 'read-only and idempotent', which duplicates annotations, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, then companion context, then behavior — a sensible ordering with little waste. Slightly dense and includes minor redundancy with the annotations ('read-only and idempotent').

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?

For a single-parameter fetch with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance constraint, error behavior, and sibling routing. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single `id` param is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by clarifying provenance ('id obtained from `search`') and the failure mode for invalid ids, which the schema does not express.

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 ('Returns the full document') and resource (a document by id from `search`), and names the return shape { id, title, text, url, metadata }. It explicitly positions itself against `search` and the `ibge_*` siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('only ids returned by `search` are valid; an unknown id returns an error') and routes the agent away from the `ibge_*` tools for data queries. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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