CriptoNoticias Brasil

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the searched fields and the fact that results are returned newest-first, which tells the agent how to interpret ordering.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by a compact English gloss. The bilingual restatement is mild duplication but is short and clearly intentional for accessibility, so it does not bloat the definition.

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 two-parameter search with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key missing pieces: what is searched, how results are ordered, and the language tip. The only residual gap is that, with no output schema, the shape of a returned 'story' object is never hinted at.

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% (both params documented with examples and min/max), so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by advising Portuguese-language terms, which meaningfully shapes how the required query parameter should be populated — something the schema does not state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search news stories) and even enumerates which fields are matched (título, resumo, tópicos e ativos) plus the ordering of results (most recent matches). It implicitly separates itself from ultimas_historias by requiring a keyword term, but it never names a sibling tool explicitly.

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 line 'Portuguese terms work best' is a useful operational hint about how to phrase the query, and the 'by keyword' framing implies the use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over ultimas_historias (browse latest) or get_historia (fetch one story).

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), so the description's main value is disclosing the returned content: AI-generated summary, key points, why it matters, key numbers, dates, and original source links. That is meaningful context beyond annotations, especially with no output schema, though it does not cover error cases or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded with the return payload, then the accepted input, in two efficient Portuguese sentences. The appended English translation is slightly redundant but brief and potentially useful for non-Portuguese readers.

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 read tool, the definition is complete: annotations carry the safety profile, the schema fully documents the parameter, and the description explains what the response contains. No output schema is needed given the enumerated return fields.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete URL pattern ('/historia/<slug>') beyond the schema's generic 'Slug ou URL da história', giving the agent a useful formatting example for invocation.

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 ('Detalhe') and resource ('uma história') and enumerates the exact payload (AI summary, key points, why it matters, key numbers, dates, source links), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like buscar or listar_temas. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5 by the sibling-differentiation criterion.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The only usage hint is the accepted input format (slug or URL), which does not tell the agent when this tool is preferred over buscar or ultimas_historias.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral traits such as auth requirements or rate limits; it focuses on output content.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence enumerates the returned content, the second specifies the accepted input format. The added English gloss is slightly redundant but aids clarity for English-speaking agents.

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 read-by-slug tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it details the returned data and input format. It lacks any sibling routing guidance, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single 'slug' parameter is documented as 'Slug ou URL do tema.' The description reinforces this and adds the example URL pattern '/tema/<slug>', but provides no additional semantic constraints. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and content: it returns details of a 'tema' including summary, open items, latest news, dated timeline, people, region/countries, and outlets. This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like listar_temas or buscar.

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 by listing what the tool returns and stating it accepts a slug or URL (/tema/<slug>). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like buscar or get_historia.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include summary, involved parties and countries, and bounds archived items to the last 30 days, but that window is ambiguous relative to the status enum.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The English line largely duplicates the Portuguese one, which is mildly redundant but aids non-Portuguese readers given the Portuguese domain vocabulary.

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 read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key return-field summary, which compensates for the missing output schema. Only the exact relationship between the 30-day window and the status filter remains fuzzy.

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% and the single 'status' enum is already documented in the schema. The description mentions active/archived but adds no syntax or behavioral nuance beyond what the enum description provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('temas'), and defines what a tema is (developing case with multiple stories over days), which is genuinely clarifying for this domain. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling get_tema or from ultimas_historias/buscar.

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 when it applies via the 'active or archived in last 30 days' scope, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over buscar or ultimas_historias. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered newest-to-oldest and each entry carries summary, dates, vehicles, and a canonical link. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the added ordering and payload detail go beyond the annotations.

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 Portuguese lead sentence is front-loaded with source, order, and payload, and the tag-filter note follows the important content. The appended English sentence is a faithful translation rather than new information, a mild redundancy, but it aids comprehension for non-pt-BR agents so it mostly earns its place.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (resumo, datas, veículos, link canônico). With only two optional parameters at full schema coverage and a complete annotation set, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination/edge behavior is unaddressed.

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%, so both 'tag' and 'limit' are already documented (including the 1-20 range and default of 10). The description's restatement of the tag as 'tópico ou ativo' with examples largely duplicates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista as histórias e notícias de cripto mais recentes do CriptoNoticias Brasil'), including the data source, language, and sort order. It is distinguishable from 'get_historia' (single item) and 'buscar' (search), though it never names those siblings, so it stops short of full 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?

The description notes the tag filter is optional ('Filtro opcional por tag') and gives example values, which implies the use case of browsing recent news. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this over 'buscar', 'get_historia', or 'get_tema', so the when-to-use decision is left entirely to inference.

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