municipality

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the data source (GeoAPI.pt) but omits side effects, authentication needs, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. With such minimal disclosure, the agent lacks critical context for safe invocation.

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 a single efficient sentence that conveys purpose and data source without extraneous words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing fields explicitly), but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should provide sufficient context about return values and behavior. It lists a few fields but is vague ('details') and does not cover error cases, completeness of fields, or format. The sibling context helps but does not compensate for the lack of explicit completeness.

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 input schema already provides a description for the sole parameter 'name' with examples. The description adds no additional meaning about format, constraints, or behavior, so it meets the baseline of 3 given 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource (Portuguese municipality details) and lists specific data fields (NIF, area, contacts, postal code). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the resource and data points are distinct enough among the listed siblings to imply its purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like postal_code or open_data_search. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any criteria for selection.

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