brazil_purchasing_power_oracle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by confirming 'zero authentication required' — an auth fact annotations do not carry — and by disclosing the data sources and correlation behaviors (BCB SGS, thermal parity, CONFAZ tax anatomy). It does not mention rate limits or output shape.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope, data sources, and safety. It is dense with parenthetical acronyms (SEFAZ NFC-e / DIEESE, ANP, ANEEL) but each sentence contributes scope rather than repeating the title, so the length is largely earned.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns. It lists what gets computed (labor hours, correlations) but not the shape or structure of the response — how per-state results are organized or what fields come back. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return format for a fairly complex oracle.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents uf and salario_mensal_brl, including defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, though its mention of the 220h CLT workload and 50L/150 kWh constants gives useful computation context. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource — calculating real PPP and labor-hour requirements across the 27 Brazilian states — and enumerates the inputs it aggregates (grocery basket, LPG, fuel, electricity). The derived metric (working hours to afford survival goods) distinguishes it from raw-price siblings like brazil_fuel_prices, but it never names an alternative, so the agent must infer 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given ten siblings including brazil_cost_of_living, brazil_grocery_basket, and brazil_tax_anatomy that heavily overlap this tool's stated scope, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap. Usage is only implied by the aggregation framing.

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