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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: the free/paid access model, the requirement of chave_api for non-WEGE3 tickers, and the bank limitation. It stops short of explaining error behavior or rate limits, but it adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, naming the scores first and then adding definitions, limitations, and access rules. Every clause adds useful information with no obvious 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?

For a two-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoring definitions, access requirements, and a key data limitation. It could say more about the response shape, but the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that ticker can be WEGE3 as a free example, that other tickers require chave_api, and that the key can be free or Pro, which meaningfully clarifies both parameters. It does not fully specify ticker format or chave_api optionality, keeping it below a 5.

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 that the tool returns fundamental scores, specifically the Piotroski F-Score and the Graham criterion, which gives it a distinct purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as saude, veredito, or multiplos, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives useful constraints: banks have no Piotroski, WEGE3 is free, and other tickers require chave_api. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like saude, veredito, or screener, leaving usage partly implied.

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