analisar_empresa

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: EBITDA is an estimate, data comes from CVM public filings, no market cap data, and warnings are issued when items cannot be calculated. This fully informs the agent about limitations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second guides usage, third lists returns, fourth adds caveats. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers what is returned, constraints (5 years), limitations (EBITDA estimate, no market data), and provides usage guidance with alternatives.

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%, so the description should compensate. The parameter 'nome_ou_cnpj' is self-explanatory, but the description does not elaborate on format or provide examples. It gives context that it's a company identifier, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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 the tool provides a standard financial analysis of the last 5 years of a company, with a specific list of metrics. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for generic requests, while alternatives handle custom periods or raw data.

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?

Explicitly says 'use when user asks something generic like 'analyze company X' without specifying period or indicators.' It also tells when NOT to use (customized requests) and names alternative tools (obter_indicadores, obter_demonstrativo_bruto).

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