list_treasure_titles

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

The readOnlyHint annotation declares read-only behavior, and the description adds value by specifying the data source (Open Finance Brasil Fase 4) and the return contents (quantity, unit price, gross/net amount, aggregate totals). No contradictions detected.

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 a clear summary and Args/Returns sections. It is not overly verbose, though the 'ctx' line is boilerplate. Overall, efficient and front-loaded.

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 an output schema, so return details are not strictly needed, but the description still provides them. It covers the purpose, parameters, and returns. With readOnlyHint annotation and a simple two-parameter schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining subject_id as 'User's CPF' and bank as 'Participating bank', adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Subject Id' and 'Bank'. This is sufficient for the two parameters.

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 lists a user's Tesouro Direto positions via Open Finance Brasil Fase 4, including specific fields. The verb 'lists' plus the specific resource (treasury bonds) distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_funds or list_variable_incomes.

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?

While there is no explicit alternative-comparison, the description clearly scopes the tool to treasury bonds (Tesouro Direto), implying it should be used when the asset type is a treasury bond. This provides contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name when not to use it.

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