bcb_serie_metadados

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses valuable behavioral details: the SGS API has no public metadata endpoint, the catalog is curated for 139 series, periodicity may be inferred and flagged as periodicidadeInferida, no authentication is needed, retries happen up to 3 times with exponential backoff, and errors return isError with Portuguese messages. It also explains HTTP 404 semantics. These details add real transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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 long but every sentence adds information: use-case, non-use-case, returned fields, source limitations, inference behavior, retry logic, error format, and output format. It is well structured with informative labels (Quando usar, Quando NÃO usar, Retorna, Limite, Comportamento), so even the length feels purposeful and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral quirks, retry logic, error handling, output shape, and even caveats about the curated catalog and inferred periodicity. Given the simple schema (one required parameter), the annotations, and the existing output schema, the description is fully complete for tool selection and invocation.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter (codigo) with a clear description: 'Código da série no SGS/BCB.' The tool description references the code indirectly by saying 'UMA série' and how to use it to confirm the series, but it does not add material semantic detail beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Obtém a descrição de UMA série do BCB' and immediately restricts the scope by saying 'sem trazer a série histórica.' It also lists exact returned fields (nome, periodicidade, categoria, fonte, último valor), and the 'Quando NÃO usar' line differentiates it from sibling tools like bcb_serie_valores and bcb_serie_ultimos.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Quando usar: para confirmar o que uma série representa e com que frequência é publicada' and 'Quando NÃO usar: para os valores em si use bcb_serie_valores ou bcb_serie_ultimos.' This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria with named alternatives.

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