get_investment

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond the annotations: 'Detalhe de investimento autorizado' suggests a read operation but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the investment must be authorized/approved, what happens if the ID is not found, or any access restrictions. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate—no contradiction, but no added behavioral context.

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 short phrase, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It is not front-loaded with the most useful information (e.g., 'Fetch a single investment by its ID'). The phrase 'investimento autorizado' may confuse rather than clarify. It earns a 3 for brevity but loses points for ambiguity.

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 tool has one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly adequate. However, the ambiguous 'autorizado' and lack of any usage context (e.g., 'use this to get details of a specific investment from list_investments') leave room for misinterpretation. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description should clarify what 'autorizado' means and how this differs from get_investment_portfolio.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description does not explain the investment_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides (type string, format uuid). The word 'detalhe' implies the parameter identifies which investment to fetch, but this is minimal. With only one parameter and a clear name, the gap is small, but the description adds no explicit semantic value.

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 'Detalhe de investimento autorizado' translates to 'Authorized investment detail' or 'Detail of authorized investment'. It identifies the resource (investment) and the action (get/detail), but the word 'autorizado' is ambiguous—it could mean 'authorized' as in permitted, or it could be a mistranslation of 'available' or 'registered'. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_investment_portfolio or list_investments, though the singular 'investment' and 'detail' hint at a single-item fetch.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for fetching a single investment by ID, nor does it contrast with list_investments or get_investment_portfolio. An agent would have to infer usage from the parameter name and sibling names.

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