fii_detalhes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'obtém detalhes' (gets details) which implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify what details are returned, whether it requires network access, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The agent has no sense of what the 'detalhes' include.

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?

A single concise sentence that states the tool's purpose with zero waste. For a one-parameter tool with a well-documented schema, this is appropriately sized and no additional text is warranted.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read-style tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent has no idea what 'detalhes' actually contains (nav, dividend yield, price, etc.), or whether it complements or overlaps with sibling tools like cotacao_ativo or proventos_ativo. Given the low complexity, this is a minimal but somewhat thin package.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'ticker' parameter, which has a clear description including examples (HGLG11, XPML11, KNRI11). The parameter is self-explanatory and the examples add practical value. Since schema already documents the sole parameter well, the description adds minimal but adequate value here.

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 'Obtém detalhes de um fundo imobiliário específico' (Gets details of a specific real estate fund) clearly states the verb (obtém) and resource (detalhes de um fundo imobiliário). It distinguishes itself from siblings like fiis_lista (which likely lists all FIIs) by focusing on a 'specific' fund, though it doesn't explicitly name differentiating sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for specific fund detail lookup vs listing all funds (fiis_lista), nor does it clarify what specific details are returned. There's no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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