obter_demonstrativo_bruto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns raw data 'sem nenhum cálculo' (without any calculation), indicating it is a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects or response size considerations, but the core behavior is clear.

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 two sentences plus a list, front-loaded with the action ('Devolve as contas contábeis brutas...'). Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and 3 siblings, the description covers the core functionality, usage context, and return structure (code, description, value). It lacks details on error handling or missing data behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only adds meaning for the 'demonstrativo' parameter by listing valid values (BPA, BPP, DRE, etc.). Other parameters (nome_ou_cnpj, ano, consolidado) are not explained in the description, leaving their purpose inferred from context. This partially compensates for the schema gap but is insufficient for full clarity.

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 returns raw accounting accounts (code, description, value in BRL millions) from a CVM financial statement, without calculations. It lists specific statement types (BPA, BPP, DRE, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling 'obter_indicadores' by noting it provides raw detail when indicators are insufficient.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when the user asks for something that the ready indicators don't cover, like a specific accounting account or greater level of detail.' This provides clear guidance and implies alternatives.

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