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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, lists pages without an argument, and returns full text with a name. This covers the main behavioral aspects, though it does not mention error handling or the exact return format.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both usage modes and states the return type (text). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits minor details like invalid name behavior.

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 0% for the 'nome' parameter, but the description compensates by explaining that the parameter takes a name (e.g., 'roic') and returns the full text. This gives clear semantic meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's function: it provides public methodology for indicators. It specifies two modes: listing pages without arguments and returning full text when a name is given (e.g., 'roic'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely provide data values rather than methodology.

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 explains how to use the tool (with and without the 'nome' argument) but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives or exclusions. It implies usage for methodology text, but no direct comparison to siblings is made.

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