Panorama municipal (Cidades@)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it names the upstream API (public IBGE Pesquisas/Cidades@ plus Localidades lookup), warns that panorama may fan out into several indicator calls and report partial upstream gaps, and states the dual Markdown + structuredContent return. Useful, though it stops short of detailing rate limits or failure modes.

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, then clearly sectioned into features, indicator values, examples, sibling routing, and behavior. Slightly long, but every block carries routing or parameter information and nothing is repeated filler.

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 format need not be explained in depth, and the description still notes Markdown plus typed structuredContent. With full schema coverage, explicit disambiguation from all relevant siblings, and documented behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it enumerates valid indicator identifiers (populacao, area, idh, etc.) and the example block shows how tipo/municipio/indicador combine for each query mode, which the schema's short field descriptions do not convey.

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 (queries) and resource (municipal indicators from IBGE/Cidades@) and immediately scopes it to a SINGLE municipality. It explicitly names the four sibling tools it is not (ibge_censo, ibge_comparar, ibge_indicadores), so an agent can route 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?

Provides concrete call examples per tipo value and an explicit 'use a different tool when' block mapping each alternative scenario to the correct sibling. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both spelled out.

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