Classificação CNAE

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context by specifying it is 'a live GET against the public IBGE CNAE API' and 'Returns Markdown,' which goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about the external source and output medium.

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 purpose and uses clear headers for hierarchy, features, examples, and behavior, making it scannable. It is slightly verbose with the level-by-level counts (21/87/285/673/1,332) that are informative but not strictly necessary for invocation.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema present, and 100% schema description coverage, the description need not explain return values. It rounds out the picture with hierarchy structure, feature list, worked examples, and source/format behavior, leaving nothing essential for a correct call unstated.

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% and the codigo field already documents format and examples in the schema, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description's examples for busca, codigo, and nivel add marginal reinforcement, but it never addresses the limite parameter; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (CNAE - National Classification of Economic Activities from IBGE), and clarifies the domain as Brazilian economic-activity classification. This cleanly distinguishes it from domain-adjacent siblings like ibge_cidades, ibge_estados, and ibge_pesquisas.

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 'Features' and 'Examples' sections give concrete invocation scenarios (search by term, by code, list by level, show hierarchy), which effectively communicates when to use the tool. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many IBGE siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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