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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses data semantics (each event's source, whether the price confirmed/disagreed, and that same-day events form one operation via efeito_liquido_do_dia) plus the auth requirement, but says nothing about errors, pagination, or response shape.

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 core content is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the efeito_liquido_do_dia explanation is relevant to interpreting results. The passage is dense but each sentence contributes, with no filler.

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 no annotations, so the description should do more. It conveys the semantics of returned fields (source, price verdict) but never describes the return structure or error behavior, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for calling it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the chave_api requirement for non-WEGE3 tickers, but gives no format or meaning for the ticker parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 names the exact resource: corporate events (splits, reverse splits, bonuses, spin-offs) for a company, which clearly separates it from siblings like dividendos and fatos_contabeis. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the data domain is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as dividendos or fatos_contabeis. The only operational note (WEGE3 free, other tickers need chave_api) is an access constraint, not usage guidance.

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