fiis_lista

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 states it lists funds with filters, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default return size (though schema has default 20), what fields each returned FII contains, or how limit/segmento affect results. It doesn't state whether this is a read operation (implied but not 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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately short for a simple listing tool. Could arguably be seen as slightly under-specified, but what's there is front-loaded and clear.

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 listing endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't describe the return format or fields, doesn't clarify filtering semantics, and doesn't explain what 'filtros opcionais' means concretely beyond the two schema parameters. Given sibling tools suggesting a rich FII ecosystem, this listing tool would benefit from describing what kind of projections/summaries it returns.

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%, so both parameters (limit and segmento) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'filtros opcionais' which aligns with the optional parameter structure. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it doesn't clarify expected segmento values (schema shows examples like shoppings, logística, lajes) or the meaning of limit's default.

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 it lists FIIs (real estate funds) with optional filters. It's a clear verb+resource, but it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'fii_detalhes' (which presumably gives detail on a single FII) beyond the plural 'lista'. The scope of what a 'list' returns versus 'detalhes' is implied but not explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when a user would prefer fiis_lista over fii_detalhes or other siblings. Context is minimal - the description doesn't clarify whether this is for browsing all funds, or for initial discovery before drilling into details.

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