Consultar Indicador Econômico

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a 'série histórica', but provides no further behavioral details such as output structure, limits, or error conditions. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond.

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 compact and well-organized: a single opening sentence, a clear list of arguments with valid values, and two practical examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the main purpose before presenting details.

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 thoroughly explains the input parameters and gives examples, but it does not describe the return format or any potential errors, which is a gap given there is no output schema. Additionally, it does not clarify the relationship to overlapping sibling tools like ibge_ipca, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this 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 schema describes 'periodos' only as a string, but the description fully documents the accepted formats ('ultimo', 'last', 'ultimos6', 'ultimos12', and intervals like '202401-202412') and provides concrete examples. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates and adds essential meaning beyond the enum values already present for 'indicador'.

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 it 'Busca indicadores econômicos e sociais com série histórica' (searches economic and social indicators with historical series), and lists the exact indicator values and period formats. This is a specific verb+resource that effectively distinguishes it from a generic search or listing tool.

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 includes two usage examples (e.g., 'Inflação 2024' and 'Desemprego atual') that imply when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over overlapping sibling tools like ibge_ipca, nor does it give 'when-not' guidance.

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