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

Annotations already indicate readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavior: each item contains days late and open value, sorted by most overdue, with default and maximum date-window constraints. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then item characteristics and ordering, then default/max window. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, it communicates the main response contents and ordering well, but it omits pagination semantics, account filtering, and any explanation of the required store parameter. The annotations cover safety, yet the 60-day window constraint alone is not enough to fully specify usage across all six parameters.

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 must compensate, but it only clarifies the date-window behavior. The required 'loja' parameter, 'account', 'page', 'limit', and the exact roles of 'data_inicial'/'data_final' are left undefined, leaving significant parameter ambiguity for a six-parameter tool.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as overdue open accounts receivable ('Contas a receber vencidas e ainda em aberto'), explicitly scoping to delinquency. The mention of ordering by most overdue and item content ('dias de atraso e valor em aberto') makes it distinct from sibling tools like cigam_contas_receber.

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?

Provides clear context for use: overdue receivables with a default window of the last 60 days and a maximum 60-day window per query. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top criterion for an explicit when/when-not statement.

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