Calcular SELIC do período (REST)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: authentication is handled automatically via the Authentication header (Base64 of the .bat token) and the app must be running. It stops short of describing response shape or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint and return value, followed by format and auth/prerequisite notes. Every sentence carries information; slight room for trimming in the date-format repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the date format, auth handling and the runtime prerequisite. The absence of any error/edge-case note (e.g. invalid or reversed dates) is a minor gap.

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% – both dataInicial and dataFinal are documented with the dd/MM/aaaa format in the schema itself. The description repeats that same format, adding no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('devolve o fator SELIC acumulado entre duas datas') and even gives the concrete REST endpoint (GET /pjecalc/servico/rest/atualizacao/selic). The resource is unique among the rest_* siblings, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requer o app em execução') but never states when to prefer this over other SELIC/atualização sources or any when-not condition. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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