inmet_dados

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the token prerequisite but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as response format, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. For a data retrieval tool, this is a significant gap; the token requirement is the only behavioral detail provided.

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: a concise purpose line, followed by prerequisite information, then a clear parameter listing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words to convey essential details. No redundant or verbose sentences.

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, the description covers the key context: token requirement, station code retrieval, and parameter limits. An output schema exists (though its contents are not shown), so return format need not be described. However, it still lacks mention of potential errors or edge cases (e.g., invalid station code, token expiry), which suggests a slight incompleteness for a production tool.

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 has zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates. It explains both parameters: 'estacao' with an example ('A001') and how to obtain codes (via inmet_estacoes), and 'dias' with default and maximum values. This is more than sufficient for an agent to correctly fill in the arguments.

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 its purpose: returns hourly observed data from an automatic INMET station for the last days. It uses a specific verb ('Dados horários observados'), names the resource (automatic INMET station), and explicitly differentiates itself from inmet_estacoes by saying to use that tool for listing stations. This is sufficient to distinguish it from all 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 provides explicit usage guidance: requires the INMET_TOKEN environment variable and states 'Sem token, use inmet_estacoes' as an alternative. It also directs users to list station codes with inmet_estacoes, covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use, with concrete fallback instructions.

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