panorama

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits: the ordering (most-to-least relevance) and the scope (only in-force norms from three regulators). It says nothing about result truncation, pagination, or how relevance is computed, which matters since the ordering is the tool's main selling point.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the use case. Nothing is padded, though the trailing example question restates the first sentence's theme rather than adding new information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope and ordering. But the unaddressed 'limite' parameter and the missing note on truncation leave an agent unable to predict how complete a single call's output will be.

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% and there is one parameter ('limite', default 40) that the description never mentions. The agent gets no guidance on what the limit controls, what the default implies, or whether results are cut off — the parameter's meaning must be guessed from its name alone.

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 gives a specific verb ('Lista') and a precisely scoped resource: in-force PSAV rules from BCB, CMN and CVM, ordered from most to least relevant to the theme. That is clear enough to distinguish it from a lookup tool like 'norma' or 'buscar', though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 offers an implied use case ('Bom ponto de partida para "quais normas regem as prestadoras de serviços de ativos virtuais"'), which tells the agent this is an entry point for an exploratory question rather than a targeted lookup. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for fetching a specific norm, leaving the routing to inference.

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