obter_corretoras_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the return envelope with success/data/error, but that is already covered by the output schema; it does not disclose auth requirements, pagination, rate limits, or other operational traits for a read-only list operation.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant explanation, making it appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned at a high level and the output schema handles return structure, though it could include brief usage context against sibling retrieval tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter information because there is none to add.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('corretoras cadastradas'), which distinguishes it from the other obter_* siblings that fetch operations, portfolio, positions, etc. The purpose is clear, though it largely restates the tool name without additional scoping detail.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or conditions for selection, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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