Brazilian Geographic Regions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds metadata mention and data source (IBGE) and license, but does not significantly extend behavioral understanding beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the essential information without fluff. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing regions inline), but it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (one optional boolean parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It names the regions, indicates metadata is included, and notes the data license, leaving no significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'refresh' documented in the schema. The main description does not add parameter details, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value 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 explicitly states the tool provides the 5 Brazilian geographic regions with metadata, clearly indicating the verb ('provides'), resource ('regions'), and scope ('5'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gov.ibge.states and gov.ibge.municipalities which serve different data.

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 fetching region data but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mentions. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but could be improved by stating it's the standard source for region lists.

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