taxas__buscar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides immediate 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's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, and available output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention that the search is exact or case-insensitive, but it is adequate for basic understanding.

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% for the single parameter 'sigla', which already has a basic description. The tool description adds value by providing concrete examples ('SELIC', 'CDI', 'IPCA'), which helps clarify acceptable input values beyond the schema's generic 'Sigla/nome da taxa.'

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches for a Brazilian interest rate ('taxa') by its acronym ('sigla'), with concrete examples ('SELIC', 'CDI', 'IPCA'). The verb 'busca' and resource 'taxa' are specific, and the examples differentiate it from siblings like taxas__listar.

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 implies usage for looking up a specific rate by acronym versus listing all rates (taxas__listar), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are provided. Guidance is minimal.

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