Brazilian Name Frequency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: data source (Brazilian census), time range (since 1930), license (CC BY 4.0). No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, uses case, and license. Extremely concise with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, data source, time coverage, license, and use case. No gaps in completeness relative to tool complexity.

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?

Input schema covers the single parameter 'name' with description. Description provides concrete examples ('MARIA', 'JOSE'), adding clarity beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but example usage raises it to 4.

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?

Clearly states the tool provides first-name popularity time-series by decade since 1930 from Brazilian census data. The target use case (cultural/marketing research) is specified, and it is distinct from sibling IBGE tools like 'gov.ibge.cnae' or 'gov.ibge.municipalities'.

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?

Explicitly mentions use case for cultural/marketing research, guiding when to use. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided, but the context is clear given no similar sibling tools exist.

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