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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral detail that the list is scoped to a reference date, which adds some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or data format expectations.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It is concise but could benefit from structuring around parameters and usage. The brevity does not sacrifice clarity for the core purpose.

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 three parameters with no descriptions, no output schema, and no examples, the description is too minimal to guide correct invocation. It does not explain date format, pagination mechanics, or account scope, making it incomplete for a tool that likely requires precise input.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for the three parameters (data, pagina, account). The only hint is 'numa data de referência' which loosely relates to the 'data' parameter but offers no format or usage. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool lists provisioned earnings (dividends/future JCP) to be received on a reference date. It uses specific verbs and resources, and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'b3_list_proventos_recebidos' which lists already received earnings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like b3_list_proventos_recebidos or others. The context signals show 19 sibling tools, but the description offers no comparison or usage conditions.

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