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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context about the output structure (grouped by class with value and percentage), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 single sentence, efficient and front-loaded, but it omits all parameter information. While concise, it is incomplete for a tool with 3 undocumented parameters.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and 0% schema coverage for 3 parameters, the description is insufficient. It only describes the output purpose, leaving parameter usage entirely undocumented. The tool's complexity is moderate but the description fails to provide necessary context.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain the three parameters (account, quantidade, agrupamento) at all. This is a critical gap; the agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters.

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 it returns a portfolio summary grouped by asset class with value and percentage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like b3_get_patrimonio (likely total portfolio) and b3_get_posicao (positions without grouping).

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 use when a grouped summary by asset class is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like b3_get_posicao or b3_get_patrimonio. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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