imovel_historico

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read operation ('history') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what permissions are required, or whether any side effects occur. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 phrase, which is concise but insufficiently detailed. It sacrifices completeness for brevity. A slightly longer description that adds parameter context or behavioral notes would be more valuable.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least explain the nature of the events returned or provide an example. The current description leaves the agent guessing about the response format and content, making it incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the single parameter 'codigo'. It fails to indicate that this is the property identifier (e.g., property code), leaving the agent to infer from context. The description adds no value beyond the schema structure.

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 'Histórico de eventos do imóvel' clearly indicates the tool returns the history of events for a property, which distinguishes it from other property tools like imovel_detalhes (details) or imovel_fotos (photos). However, it does not specify what types of events are included, making it somewhat vague.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives, such as imovel_detalhes or imoveis_pesquisar, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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