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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core behavior: it recommends investment types and returns ranked options with pros and cons. It does not mention whether the tool is purely informational, whether recommendations are guaranteed or risk-averse, or any disclaimers about financial advice. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the main purpose and input scope, then states the output format. Every phrase adds value.

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, so the description's statement that it returns 'opções rankeadas com prós e contras' is the only return-value guidance. This gives a general idea but omits the ranking criteria, what kinds of investment types may appear, and any behavioral caveats. The parameter side is well-covered by the schema, but the output side is only partially specified.

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 schema documents all five parameters. The description restates four of them (perfil, prazo, valor, objetivo) but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. One parameter, needs_liquidity, is not mentioned, but its schema entry with a default covers it. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Recomenda') and clearly identifies the resource ('tipo de investimento') and the inputs that drive it (perfil, prazo, valor, objetivo). It also states the output form ('opções rankeadas com prós e contras'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, though the profile-based recommendation framing distinguishes it from pure calculation/compare siblings.

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 to use the tool: when a user has a profile, term, amount, and objective and wants investment recommendations. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives like compare_investments or calculate_investment_return, and no prerequisites beyond the listed inputs.

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