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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds behavioral detail: revenue is net of returns, expenses come from financial postings by accounts, and expense detail is grouped by category. It does not mention output structure or pagination, but the calculation semantics are clearly exposed.

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 one front-loaded sentence that moves from the general result concept to the exact components of the calculation. There is no filler, repeated wording, or unnecessary background.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient conceptual completeness: it names the store scope, the period framing, and the exact calculation behind the result. It leaves some optional parameter semantics to the schema, but an agent can understand what the tool returns and when it is relevant.

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?

The description provides meaningful domain context for interpreting some parameters: 'loja' maps to the store, 'por período' maps to the date parameters, and 'plano de contas' gives meaning to 'account'. However, it does not directly document each parameter, the optional filtering behavior, or date formats, and schema description coverage is 0%.

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 identifies a concrete deliverable: a simplified managerial store result for a period, and spells out the core formula (net invoiced revenue minus expense postings by chart of accounts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as cash-flow or sales reports.

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 'Resultado gerencial simplificado de uma loja por período' implies when the tool should be used, namely when a period-based store income/expense result is needed, rather than a cash-flow or sales breakdown. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as cigam_fluxo_caixa or cigam_vendas.

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