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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned metadata fields and explaining the meaning of hasSeries and hasDetails, which helps an agent interpret results and choose next steps.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the catalog purpose and then explains the two flags that matter for interpreting results.

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 catalog tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and what the key flags mean. It leaves minor gaps around pagination, ordering, and whether omitted filters return the full catalog, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 query and category parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional meaning about filtering semantics, case sensitivity, exact category matching, or default behavior.

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 specific verb and resource: listing economic indicators from Observatório BR, and it names the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_indicator_details or get_indicator_series, though the hasSeries/hasDetails flags imply the catalog role.

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?

Usage is implied: this is a catalog listing tool, and the hasSeries/hasDetails flags hint at which follow-up tools might be relevant. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_indicator_details, get_indicator_series, get_indicator_latest, or search.

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