rif_analytics_list_funcoes_por_envolvido

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Lista') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data format, or pagination. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a tool with potential complexity in data retrieval.

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 in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes key details without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't fully explain parameter meanings or behavioral aspects. However, an output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, raising the baseline. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps in usage and parameters.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'CPF/CNPJ' and 'origem' (origin), hinting at 'cpf_cnpj' and possibly 'src_id', but doesn't explain what 'src_id' represents, expected formats, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 clearly states the verb ('Lista' - lists) and resource ('funcoes exercidas por um CPF/CNPJ' - functions performed by a CPF/CNPJ), specifying it operates 'dentro dos indexadores da origem' (within the origin's indexers). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rif_analytics_get_resumo' or 'rif_analytics_list_maiores_transacoes', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other 'rif_analytics' tools like 'list_maiores_transacoes_por_pessoa'. Usage is implied by the parameters but not explicitly stated.

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