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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and covers key behaviors: inclusive bounds, exact/case-insensitive segment matching, a liquidity floor, exclusion of flagged values, ascending P/VP sorting, a 100-record cap, and API-key authorization. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 tight paragraph where every sentence earns its place: it gives a mini-example, enumerates valid filters, notes data-quality constraints, ordering, limit, and auth. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains filtering criteria, sorting, maximum returned records, data-quality filtering, and required key, which is enough to understand the tool's behavior. The nested filtros object is fully demystified, so nothing critical is missing.

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% and the only parameter property is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties true. The description compensates by listing valid keys (pvp_min, pvp_max, dy_min, dy_max, segmento, cotistas_min) and their semantics, including inclusivity and matching rules, plus the chave_api requirement.

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 opens with 'Filtra os FIIs por faixas,' using a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes this from the stock-screener sibling by scoping to FIIs. It further specifies ordering and output cap, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 clearly establishes this tool is for filtering FIIs by range-based criteria ('por faixas') and gives the exact accepted keys. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the FII-specific scope provides clear enough context.

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