bcb_focus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the tool is a read operation returning 'projeção média' (average projections) for future periods, which covers the essential nature. However, it adds no depth on data currency/update cadence or period granularity, which would be useful context for an expectations tool.

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 content is compact and front-loaded with the purpose before the Args section, but it suffers from redundancy ('Boletim Focus (Boletim Focus)') and an awkward code-style leak of the Args block into the description. Every sentence earns weight, but the duplicate phrasing and mixed formatting detract from polish.

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 one parameter whose values are documented in the description, and an output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not needed. For a simple single-indicator read tool, the definition is mostly complete, with only minor gaps around what 'próximos períodos' concretely covers.

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. It does enumerate the valid values for 'indicador' ('selic', 'ipca', 'pib' ou 'cambio'), which goes beyond the bare schema. However, it adds no meaning about what each indicator represents or how 'cambio' differs from actual exchange-rate data, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Mostra a projeção média dos analistas de mercado' from the Boletim Focus, the Central Bank's market expectations survey. It identifies the specific data source, which helps separate it from siblings like bcb_serie and bcb_cambio. It could be more explicit about how it differs from those alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or references to siblings such as bcb_serie or bcb_cambio, even though the 'cambio' indicator could plausibly overlap with bcb_cambio. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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