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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it explains the side-by-side display, the fact that restatements are recorded rather than silently corrected, and gives a free-use example. It does not cover error handling or return format, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 a compact, front-loaded two-sentence summary. Every part adds value: purpose, output details, differentiator, and an example. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description gives a good sense of what the result contains (ano, conta, valores, variação). It lacks information on possible empty results or authentication nuances, but for a simple tool with one required parameter, it is largely adequate.

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?

The description clarifies that the tool works for a company ('de uma empresa') and provides WEGE3 as an example ticker, which helps for the required 'ticker' parameter. However, the optional 'chave_api' parameter is not mentioned at all, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 purpose: it shows republished balance sheets with side-by-side comparisons of original and restated values. It includes specific fields (year, account, old vs new, variation) and a concrete example (WEGE3), making it distinct from siblings like fatos_contabeis.

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 for a specific company's restatements but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. The 'differential' line hints at a unique benefit, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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