get_fidc_report

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, open-world operation, so the description's main added value is domain context: it defines inadimplencia_pct and cites the FIDC monthly report tables. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or return shape, but an output schema exists and the safety profile is already covered.

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 short and front-loads the dashboard contents before defining the delinquency metric. The metric definition and table references earn their place, though the first sentence is a noun phrase rather than a direct statement of the tool's action.

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 simple read-only report tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description supplies enough domain context to call it correctly. It does not cover every behavioral detail, but nothing critical for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so fund, first_period, and last_period are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the FIDC report context, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a credit-fund dashboard and lists the specific content returned: assets, portfolio, net asset value, and delinquency. It is clear enough to distinguish this FIDC report from generic fund NAV or portfolio siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'Credit-fund dashboard' implies use for FIDC-level reporting, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with siblings such as get_fund_nav, get_fund_portfolio, or rank_funds. Usage is therefore inferable but not directed.

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