comex_data_caveats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It accurately describes a safe read-only behavior (retrieving caveat metadata) and discloses the internal structure of each result (evidence, correction rule, provenance). For a low-risk retrieval tool there is little behavioral hazard left uncovered.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, and the essential guidance fits in three sentences. The closing rhetorical question adds rhetorical color but no operational information, making it mildly less economical than it could be.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the results contain, when to invoke it, and the overall QA intent. It does not specify the return format, but that is a minor gap for this information-retrieval use case.

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 100%: the single 'id' parameter carries an enum and a clear explanation ('Um caveat especifico. Vazio = todos.'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 exposes known defects of the Comex Stat dataset, each with quantified evidence, a correction rule, and verification provenance. It positions itself against 'a data wrapper' generically, distinguishing its QA purpose from the sibling trade-flow/freight tools, though it never names those siblings 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use ANTES de publicar qualquer numero derivado desta fonte') and mentions a built-in conferencing checklist. However, it does not state when NOT to use it or name the alternatives (comex_trade_flow, comex_freight_cost) that it should be paired with.

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