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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond annotations by clarifying the cash-basis calculation and explicitly noting that installments and future invoices are not treated as debt.

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, starting with the core concept 'Saldo consolidado' and immediately enumerating the result components. Every sentence adds useful information, and the example queries at the end are practical, not 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 zero-parameter, read-only aggregate tool, the description fully explains what the agent should expect: account balances, open invoices, and net worth calculation. There is no output schema, so the description adequately covers return semantics on its own.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics the description must explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool is parameterless and the description adds clarifying context about what data is returned.

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's output: consolidated balance with current account balances, current open credit card invoices, and net worth (accounts minus open invoices). It also gives concrete example user queries it serves, making its purpose immediately obvious and distinguishable from other reporting tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: for questions like 'qual meu saldo total', 'quanto tenho', and 'patrimônio'. It gives strong usage context, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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