get_titulo_tesouro

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

The description discloses a key behavior: matching is by substring ('contém'), which goes beyond what the tool name alone implies. However, with no annotations available, the description still does not explain output format, case sensitivity, or what happens if no matches are found.

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, well-structured sentence. The action and filtering criterion are front-loaded, and the examples add practical value without unnecessary length.

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 one-parameter read/search tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It does not mention return values or how it relates to sibling tools, but the tool's minimal complexity makes the description mostly sufficient.

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?

The schema provides no description for 'nome', so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that 'nome' is a substring of the bond type and gives concrete examples ('IPCA', 'Selic', 'Prefixado'), which makes the parameter's meaning clear.

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 states a clear verb ('Busca') and resource ('títulos') and defines the filtering criterion ('tipo contém nome'). It is sufficiently clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like listar_titulos_tesouro, so it stops short of a 5.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listar_titulos_tesouro or simular_tesouro. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it should be preferred over other available tools.

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