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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool lists accounts payable and mentions specific fields, which provides some behavioral context (what data is returned). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any additional side effects. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 sentence that immediately states the primary action and scope. It contains no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description gives a high-level overview but omits crucial details such as parameter formats, default values, pagination limits, or the exact structure of the return data. For an agent to correctly invoke this tool, it would need to infer too much from parameter names alone. The description is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters. The description mentions fields like 'Fornecedor, vencimento, plano de contas, nota fiscal/duplicata, valores, juros,' which might correspond to filters or outputs, but it does not map them to the actual parameters (e.g., loja, data_inicial, cod_fornecedor). The agent is left guessing at the meaning of parameters like 'situacao' or 'tipo_data'. 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 action: 'Lista contas a pagar por período' (lists accounts payable by period). It names the resource (contas a pagar) and the scope (by period). It also enumerates key fields returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigam_contas_receber (accounts receivable) and cigam_caixa.

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 phrase 'por período' implies the tool is used for date-range queries, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are stated. The sibling list includes many related tools, but the description does not clarify selection criteria.

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