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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by specifying that the projection is based on receipts vs payments and covers a future N-month period. However, it does not disclose methodology, limitations, or data dependencies.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Perfectly concise.

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 read-only projection tool with two fully documented parameters and good annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It states the purpose and scope, though it does not describe the return format, which is not critical for invocation.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description only aligns 'N meses' with the 'meses' parameter and does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Projeta' (projects) with a clear resource 'fluxo de caixa futuro' (future cash flow) and specifies the scope 'recebimentos vs pagamentos' and time horizon 'próximos N meses'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like consultar_saldo or listar_transacoes.

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 such as consultar_dre or dashboard_executivo. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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