simular_tesouro

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden and does it well: it discloses that the output is gross, the input rate is an annual percentage, and that IR, custody fee (0.20% p.a. B3), and early-redemption mark-to-market are not considered. It stops short of specifying return format or exact compounding convention.

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 compact sentences front-load the action and resource, then add the key input instruction and exclusions. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter calculator, the description is adequate but not complete. Without annotations or an output schema, it should also clarify the remaining parameter semantics and the exact output value returned; it does disclose the most important assumptions and exclusions.

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 needed to explain all parameters. It explains taxa_anual (unit, % p.a., purchase rate) but gives no additional meaning for valor_investido or anos, leaving two of three parameters reliant only on self-evident titles.

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 a specific verb and resource: it simulates the gross amount of a fixed-rate/indexed Tesouro bond, clarifying the output is bruto. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as juros_compostos or rentabilidade_vs_cdi, though the resource scope makes the main purpose clear.

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?

It gives useful operating context: taxa_anual must be the purchase rate in % p.a., and the tool ignores IR, custody fee, and mark-to-market. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide alternative routing to sibling tools.

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