buscar_ceps_por_logradouro

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search functionality and return format ('Lista de dicionários com endereços'), but doesn't mention potential limitations like partial matches, empty results, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It adequately covers basic behavior but lacks operational details.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with the core purpose, then provides a well-organized parameter section with clear examples, and concludes with return value information. Every sentence adds essential value with zero waste.

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 moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, parameters with examples, and return format. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context about how the search works and what the returned dictionaries contain.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the 0% schema coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose with concrete examples: 'uf: Sigla do estado (ex: SP, RJ)', 'cidade: Nome da cidade (ex: São Paulo)', and 'logradouro: Nome da rua, avenida, praça etc (ex: Praça da Sé)'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('CEPs associados a um logradouro'), including the required geographic context ('em uma cidade e estado'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'buscar_cep' by specifying it searches for multiple CEPs associated with a street rather than a single CEP.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching for all CEPs associated with a street in a city/state). It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, though the distinction from 'buscar_cep' is implied by the different functionality described.

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