Brazilian Name Frequency

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds the time-range (since 1930) and license information. No behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed, but no contradictions. Additional context such as potential rate limits or data coverage could be 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 two sentences with 20 words, immediately conveying the tool's purpose, data source, and relevance. No redundant or extraneous information. Front-loaded with key details.

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 (single parameter, no enums, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It explains the return type (time-series) and data source. Minor missing details like data freshness or name case sensitivity would improve completeness, but overall adequate.

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 100% description coverage for the single 'name' parameter, including examples and expected behavior. The main description repeats this information without adding new semantics. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 it provides a time-series of first-name popularity by decade since 1930 from Brazilian census data. The verb 'popularity time-series' combined with resource 'Brazilian census data' makes the purpose specific. No sibling tools overlap, so differentiation is clear.

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 mentions 'useful for cultural/marketing research,' giving context for when to use. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention any alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about appropriate use cases.

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