ibge_sidra

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains parameters and provides a link to the aggregate list, but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, potential response size, pagination, or rate limits. It implies a network call but lacks explicit safety or side-effect notes. Adequate but not rich for a zero-annotation tool.

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 docstring is well-structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter explanations. It is concise and every sentence adds value, with examples and a link. Slightly long but acceptable for a generic API with multiple parameters.

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 presence of an output schema (per context signal), the description correctly focuses on input semantics. It covers all parameters, provides reference material, and is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid call. Minor gaps include no mention of error conditions or pagination, but these are not critical for initial 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by providing concrete examples for every parameter: 'agregado' with ID examples and a URL, 'variavel' with an example, 'localidades' with format 'N1[1]' and place examples, and 'periodos' with ranges. This is far beyond what the schema offers, making parameter usage unambiguous.

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 ('Consulta genérica') and resource ('API SIDRA do IBGE') with explicit scope 'para qualquer indicador'. It clearly differentiates itself from the specific sibling tools (ibge_populacao, ibge_pib) by being generic, so an agent can immediately understand this is a universal wrapper.

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 generic applicability but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't say 'use specific tools for population or PIB' or warn against using this for known indicators. The absence of explicit routing to sibling tools leaves some inference burden on the agent, though the generic phrasing suggests it is a fallback.

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