Busca de tabelas SIDRA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it performs a live GET against the public IBGE SIDRA API, returns a Markdown table, and explains vocabulary normalization (renda→rendimento, etc.) with a notas_vocabulario note. It could add rate-limit or pagination details, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Features, Surveys, Examples, Workflow) and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat long, but every section earns its place by providing routing and behavioral context. A few redundant lines (e.g., listing surveys twice) could be trimmed, but it remains efficient.

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 list/search tool with zero required parameters, an output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the workflow position, the return format, the vocabulary normalization behavior, and the alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds examples and explains the AND/accents/case behavior for busca, but it mostly restates what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Lists and searches available SIDRA tables') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the SIDRA workflow and wrappers. It also enumerates features and examples, so an agent can tell it apart from ibge_sidra_metadados and ibge_sidra without opening schemas.

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 description explicitly says this is step 1 of the SIDRA workflow, names the follow-up tools (ibge_sidra_metadados, ibge_sidra), and advises that wrappers (ibge_censo, ibge_indicadores, ibge_comparar, ibge_cidades) are usually easier for common data. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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