consultar_estado_ibge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read-only operation (consulta) and lists return fields, but does not disclose potential error conditions, data freshness, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks depth.

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: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return fields. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous text. It effectively communicates the tool's functionality in minimal space.

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 (one required parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how it is invoked (via IBGE API), and what data is returned. The presence of an output schema means return value details need not be repeated. No gaps remain for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 input schema has one parameter 'uf' with a description providing examples. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'pela sigla da UF' but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., case sensitivity, format validation). It does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 verb 'consulta' (query), the resource 'dados de um estado brasileiro', and the method 'pela sigla da UF via API IBGE'. It also specifies the returned fields (id, sigla, nome oficial, região geográfica), leaving no ambiguity. Among many 'consultar_*' siblings, this tool is uniquely identified by its focus on estado data via the IBGE API.

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 querying Brazilian state data by UF, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools like 'consultar_municipios_ibge' or 'consultar_cnpj'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned. It provides minimal context for decision-making.

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