ibge_populacao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavior: when 'ano' is omitted, the tool returns the most recent available period. This adds practical context beyond the schema's default of null. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as data source specifics, pagination, or any error-handling behavior. For a read-only tool, the description is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a one-sentence purpose followed by two bullet-point parameter explanations. It front-loads the core purpose and each parameter is described in a single line. There is zero redundancy; every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 simple two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter usage, and a key default behavior. It does not mention alternatives or edge cases, but given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, nothing critical is missing. A brief note on when to use this versus ibge_sidra would improve completeness, but it is not essential for correct invocation.

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 the parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'uf' is defined with examples ('SP', 'RJ') and 'BR' for national total, and 'ano' is explained with the default behavior when omitted. This goes well beyond the schema which only gives types and defaults, fully equipping the agent to supply valid inputs.

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 clearly states the tool returns resident population data for a Brazilian state or the entire country, sourced from IBGE/SIDRA. It names the data type and geographic scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on GDP (ibge_pib), municipalities (ibge_municipios), or general SIDRA queries (ibge_sidra). However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or delineate when to prefer this tool over others, stopping short of full 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?

The description implies usage for population queries by stating what it returns, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ibge_pib or ibge_sidra. It lacks exclusionary conditions or mention of other tools. The context is clear enough (you use it when you need population of a UF or Brazil), but the absence of alternative routing is a gap.

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