ibge_pib

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one useful behavior — omitting `ano` returns the most recent available period — and the operation is clearly a non-destructive read. However, it does not describe data frequency, units, whether long-run series may include gaps, or any response details; with an output schema present, return structure is covered elsewhere. The disclosure is adequate but thin.

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 tight: a one-line purpose followed by two concise parameter notes. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The args block overlaps somewhat with the input schema, but it adds value through the 'BR' hint and default-period behavior, so no waste.

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 simplicity (a single-value GDP lookup for a UF/year) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the default behavior adequately. The main gap is the unresolved relationship to the sibling `ibge_sidra`, which an agent might confuse with this tool given the shared source name.

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. Both parameters are explicated: `uf` is defined as a UF abbreviation with examples ('MG', 'BA') or 'BR' for the national total, and `ano` is defined as the reference year with the omit-for-most-recent behavior. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 operation — returning PIB at current prices for a federation unit or Brazil — and names the source (IBGE/SIDRA). It distinguishes itself from siblings by topic (PIB vs. populacao, municipios, BCB, INMET, camara), so an agent can tell it apart by subject. However, it shares its source with the sibling `ibge_sidra`, and the description does not clarify how it differs from that more general tool, which slightly weakens differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parameter hints (e.g., 'BR' for national total, omit ano for the most recent period) give operational context, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over `ibge_sidra` or how to choose among the IBGE siblings. Usage is only implied by the GDP topic, with no exclusions or explicit routing.

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