Malhas temáticas

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses provenance (versioned official IBGE/GeoFTP snapshots audited by the laboratory), the return format (Markdown plus typed structuredContent), and a hard contract boundary ('THEMATIC GEOMETRY IS NOT PART OF THIS TOOL'S CONTRACT'). These are behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey.

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 cleanly sectioned into recortes, filtering, contract boundary, and routing. Slightly redundant in stating the geometry exclusion twice (once as a contract note, once under 'Use a different tool when'), which costs it the top score.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, full parameter coverage, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, enumeration, filter semantics, sibling routing, and return format. Nothing material 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 schema already spells out the enum values, the cd_bioma vs. 7-digit municipality code rule, and the limite default/max with 'total always returned'. The description's parameter guidance largely restates the schema rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Lists what a THEMATIC territorial recorte of Brazil contains'), enumerates all eight recortes, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ibge_malhas. An agent can identify the tool's scope and output shape without opening the 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?

Explicit routing is given: 'Use a different tool when: Administrative meshes WITH geometry → ibge_malhas', plus the inverse rule that thematic geometry is out of contract. It also tells the agent how to get a plain listing ('Ask without codigo to list records') and that 'listar' bypasses the source entirely.

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