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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds that it lists receivables by period, which is useful, but it omits any behavioral detail like pagination, output structure, or whether it respects date filters, so it adds only minimal extra context.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and quickly listing the data content. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is inadequate for an agent to understand how to construct valid calls. It lacks essential context on filters (e.g., paging, date ranges, account status) and the return structure, making it only partially useful.

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% — the description does not explain any of the nine parameters (loja, page, limit, account, situacao, tipo_data, data_final, cod_cliente, data_inicial). Since the description says nothing about these fields, the agent cannot infer their meaning or format, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 the tool lists accounts receivable by period and mentions the included data fields (cliente, vencimento, forma de pagamento, etc.). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cigam_contas_pagar or cigam_vendas, but it lacks a direct mention of scope (e.g., 'all accounts' or 'filterable'), so it is strong but not perfect.

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 on when to use this tool versus other receivable-related tools or the general reporting tool. It only describes what it does, not when to choose it over alternatives.

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