obter_estrategias_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 a success/error envelope but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication needs, rate limits, ordering, or whether the list is exhaustive – all relevant for an agent calling a list endpoint with no schema-level safety hints.

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 first line is a single, front-loaded purpose statement with no filler, and the return-contract note follows. It is appropriate in size, though the return block is partially redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-value explanation is not strictly required, leaving the description adequate for a no-param list tool. Still, the total absence of guidance on sibling selection and read-only behavior means an agent lacks the context needed to choose it confidently among ten similar 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details because none exist; no compensation is needed.

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 the verb 'Lista' and the resource 'estrategias de investimento', which is clear. However, with ten sibling tools all prefixed 'obter_' and retrieving different investment data lists, the description does not differentiate what an 'estrategia' is versus 'subestrategias' or 'operacoes', leaving an agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many siblings like obter_subestrategias_tool or obter_operacoes_tool. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints, so an agent must guess based solely on the tool name.

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