cotacao_milho

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format and mentions caching ('cache_hit'), indicating it is a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose update frequency, authentication needs, or potential rate limits.

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 concise with two lines of prose and a bullet list of return fields. It is front-loaded with purpose and lacks unnecessary fluff, though the bullet list could be integrated more naturally.

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 zero parameters and a described output schema, the description covers the basic return structure and source. However, it lacks temporal context (e.g., latest vs. historical prices) and any caveats about data freshness, which would improve completeness.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, but it does describe the return fields, which is helpful beyond the empty schema.

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 the CEPEA/ESALQ indicator for corn, a national price reference. The verb 'Retorna' and specific resource 'indicador CEPEA/ESALQ de milho' provide clear purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cotacao_soja by product.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or how it compares to other cotacao_* tools.

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