Comparação entre localidades

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond them by disclosing it performs a live GET against the public IBGE APIs (SIDRA and Localidades) and returns Markdown plus a typed structuredContent payload. It does not cover error/rate-limit behavior, but with safety fully annotated this is solid added value.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then useful sections (indicators, features, examples, exclusions, behavior) in a scannable structure. It runs long and duplicates the schema's indicator definitions, but each sentence is on-topic and aids selection.

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, 100% schema coverage, an output schema handling return values, and explicit sibling routing, the definition supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. No material gap remains.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint absent from the schema ('Compare up to 10 localities at once') and concrete code-format examples (7-digit municipalities, 2-digit states) that clarify how to populate 'localidades'. The indicator list largely duplicates the schema enum.

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 ('Compares data between localities (municipalities or states)') and immediately names the scope of the operation. It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly stating it compares a fixed set of localities rather than producing time series or single-locality panels.

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 an explicit 'Use a different tool when:' block naming three alternatives (ibge_indicadores, ibge_censo, ibge_sidra) with the conditions that select each, plus a 'use ONLY to rank/compare 2–10 localities' constraint and single-locality fallbacks (ibge_cidades, ibge_censo, ibge_sidra). Nothing is left to inference.

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