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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral value by stating it computes projected cash flow with a maximum 60-day window, and implicitly that it aggregates open receivables and payables. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 focused sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and a limitation. It's front-loaded with the key information and has zero filler words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 is a read-only projection report with straightforward inputs and no output schema, so the description covers the essential purpose and the only notable constraint (60-day max). Given the low complexity and strong annotations, the description is largely complete, though it could mention that output is a summary (receivables vs payables vs balance) which is already stated.

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 doesn't explain any parameters, but the tool is simple: 'loja' is self-explanatory as required store identifier, and data_inicial/data_final are clearly date-range bounds given the description mentions 'por período'. The description adds the 60-day window constraint, partially compensating for no param docs, but doesn't detail the data format or account parameter.

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 provides projected cash flow for a store over a period, comparing total receivables vs payables and projected balance. It names the specific resource (fluxo de caixa) and the core computation (receivables vs payables, saldo projetado), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigam_contas_pagar, cigam_contas_receber, and cigam_caixa that track individual components.

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 implies usage for financial projections over a period, but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like cigam_contas_pagar, cigam_contas_receber, or cigam_caixa. It does mention a 60-day maximum window, which helps set expectations, but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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