Consultar indicador do Banco Central

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: long daily series (>400 points) are automatically downsampled to the last value of each month to fit the conversation context — a transformation the agent must know to interpret results correctly.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and source, followed by the downsampling caveat. No wasted words, though the truncation rule could be stated slightly more crisply (e.g., naming the threshold as automatic aggregation).

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the most important remaining gap — the monthly downsampling for long daily series — so an agent can interpret results; only minor gaps remain (frequency defaults, whether values are level or change).

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 67%: inicio and fim are documented in the schema with accepted formats, but the five enum values for indicador carry no explanation in either place. The description reinforces the two-date range concept and "AAAA" granularity indirectly, but does not add syntax or semantic detail beyond the 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?

States the specific resource and source: "Série oficial do Banco Central (SGS) entre duas datas", which tells an agent it retrieves official BCB time-series data over a date range. The implicit verb (query/retrieve) is clear from the name, and the sibling tools (atas, reuniões) make the domain distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is the sole indicator-query tool among meeting-related siblings, so selection is unambiguous by default. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, what "indicador" codes mean, or what to expect if the range is invalid — guidance remains implicit.

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