bcb

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool queries data and lists indicators and numeric codes, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error handling, data limits, authentication, or response format beyond the 'formato' parameter. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 with clear categories, bullet points, and examples. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the indicator space well with categories and examples. It could mention the default format or provide guidance on pagination/large responses, but it is sufficiently complete for a query tool.

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% coverage, so the description's added value comes from grouping indicators, providing examples, and explaining the numeric code option. This enriches understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 queries Central Bank of Brazil data, lists specific indicators across categories, and distinguishes itself from sibling IBGE tools which handle demographic/geographic 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?

The description provides usage examples and lists indicators, making it clear when to use this tool for Brazilian economic data. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it, but the sibling context (all IBGE tools) and the focused indicator set make the appropriate context obvious.

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