rif_analytics_get_resumo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a summary, which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'consolidado' entails (e.g., aggregated data, format). The description is too vague to fully inform an agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details. There's no wasted text, making it concise, but it lacks structural elements like bullet points or examples that might enhance clarity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses details on parameter usage, behavioral context, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool with undocumented inputs, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'uma origem' (a source), which loosely relates to 'src_id', but doesn't explain the meaning of 'src_id', 'data_inicio', or 'data_fim' (e.g., date formats, optionality, or how they affect the summary). With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond implying a source is required.

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 'Retorna um resumo consolidado dos indicadores analiticos de uma origem' clearly states it returns a consolidated summary of analytical indicators for a source, providing a specific verb ('retorna') and resource ('indicadores analiticos'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'rif_analytics_list_maiores_transacoes' or 'rif_analytics_list_funcoes_por_envolvido', which also appear to be analytics tools. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. While it implies usage for summary analytics, there's no explicit context to help an agent choose between this and other analytics tools in the list, such as those for listing transactions or functions.

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