desempenho_fii

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantive behavioral context: prices are not split-adjusted, daily jumps over 35% are surfaced in `saltos_suspeitos` with `confiavel: false`, and amortization is excluded. It also discloses the 'no key' auth condition. It stops short of describing return format/pagination, but the data-semantics disclosure is unusually rich.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the sibling reference and scope front-loaded. No filler; it is compact given how much behavioral detail it conveys.

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 tool has 5 params, no output schema, and no annotations. The description usefully discloses output-field semantics and auth, but with zero parameter documentation and no return-shape description, it leaves meaningful gaps for an agent calling it.

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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, yet the description explains none of them. It names output fields (`saltos_suspeitos`, `confiavel`, `retorno_total_pct`) but says nothing about `de`, `ate`, `ticker`, `media_curta`, or `media_longa`, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states the resource (performance for a real estate fund) and explicitly scopes it as the FII variant of the sibling tool `desempenho`, which distinguishes it from `desempenho_etf` and the equity version. The verb is implied by the reference rather than stated directly, so it falls short of a fully self-contained 5.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the domain (FII) and noting it is 'aberto, sem chave' (open, no key required), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a direct routing to the sibling it diverges from. An agent can infer the use case but gets no explicit selection criteria.

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