bcb_buscar_serie

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the search accepts terms with or without accents and gives an example, which adds some context. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like, making it insufficient for a mutation-aware tool.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding helpful details in the second. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys key information without being overly verbose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of series, metadata), potential limitations, or error handling. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its full context.

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 100% description coverage, so the parameter 'termo' is well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that it accepts terms with or without accents and provides an example, but this is marginal beyond the schema's details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as searching series in an internal catalog by name or description, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'bcb_series_populares' or 'bcb_serie_valores', which might also involve series retrieval, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions the search functionality but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools like 'bcb_serie_metadados' or 'bcb_serie_ultimos', leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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