issuance_volume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: valor_total is as reported by CVM and amounts across decades are not inflation-adjusted, which is a material caveat for any comparison the agent produces.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the one caveat that matters. No filler, though the caveat sentence could be tightened slightly and the term 'rite' is left undefined.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What remains is adequately covered: grouping options, optional filters via schema, and the nominal-value caveat. Only the unit/currency of valor_total is left implicit.

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 every parameter (rite, asset_type, first_date, last_date, limit, group_by) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the grouping dimension list but adds no format, default, or semantic detail beyond it, 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+resource: total offering volume, plus the aggregation dimensions (year, asset type, issuer, lead, rite). This separates it from search_offerings and league_table by implying aggregation rather than listing or ranking, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for aggregate offering volume rather than raw offering records. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over search_offerings or league_table, and no mention of prerequisites or data coverage limits.

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