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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Retrieve' signals a read-only lookup, and the description discloses what the result contains: name, state, availability date, and official publication URLs. It does not discuss not-found behavior, but for a simple single-ID lookup this is acceptable.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence is informative. The usage guidance and alternative routing are placed after the purpose without padding.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, an output schema exists, and the description names the only two sibling tools. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and when not to use it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent 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?

The schema only lists territory_id as a plain string with no description. The description compensates by explaining it is a 7-digit IBGE territory ID and that it typically comes from search_cities. This gives the agent enough semantic grounding to select and format the parameter.

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: 'Retrieve one Brazilian municipality by its 7-digit IBGE territory ID.' The phrase 'one' and the ID-based lookup clearly distinguish it from the fuzzy/name-based sibling search_cities.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: when the exact territory_id is already known. It also names the alternative and its trigger: 'If you only have a city name, call search_cities instead.' This is direct routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the matching semantics (partial, case-insensitive similarity rather than exact equality) and the post-filtering behavior of state_code. It does not go into return shape or pagination, but an output schema exists and the core behavior is well explained.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, immediately followed by usage context and parameter semantics. Every paragraph earns its place, including the concrete example that clarifies the intended call flow without excessive verbosity.

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 2-parameter search tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to call it, how to call it, parameter behavior, and the relationship to sibling tools. An output schema exists, so the lack of return-format detail is acceptable. Nothing essential for correct tool invocation 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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains city_name as a partial, case-insensitive name query and state_code as an optional two-letter Brazilian state/UF filter applied after the upstream search, including examples like 'RS' and 'SP' and its disambiguation purpose.

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 ('Find') and a concrete resource ('Brazilian municipalities indexed by Querido Diário'), and explains the tool's unique role: resolving 7-digit IBGE territory IDs. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting that both get_city and search_gazettes require the territory ID that this tool provides.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST whenever a request names a city but you don't already have its numeric territory ID.' It names the sibling tools and gives a concrete example workflow, effectively telling the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives and what to do after.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: each result is one gazette with an excerpt, empty queries return metadata without excerpts, dates are inclusive, size is capped at 50, and sort defaults to relevance. This goes well beyond the schema in explaining actual behavior.

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 long but justified by seven undocumented parameters and no annotations. It is front-loaded with the core semantics, organized into focused paragraphs per concern, and closes with a complete example, with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity, optional parameters, and lack of annotations/schema descriptions, the description is complete: it covers result units, matching behavior, all filters, defaults, limits, pagination, and a realistic example. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already covered elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description must explain every parameter, and it does: query syntax (OR, +, -, quoted phrases), territory_ids as 7-digit IBGE IDs, inclusive ISO dates, size/offset pagination, and sort_by values. The included example ties the parameters together concretely.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the text of published Brazilian municipal official gazettes.' It then explicitly distinguishes gazette content from city metadata and points to search_cities, making the purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling tools.

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?

It gives a clear workflow: resolve a city name to territory_id with search_cities first, or omit territory_ids to search all cities. It also explains query syntax, date filtering, pagination, and sort options, so an agent knows exactly when and how to invoke the tool.

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