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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail – that the data is aggregated by day and includes the next receipt date – which goes beyond annotations, but it does not disclose pagination, response structure, or ordering. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 that front-loads the primary purpose and key aggregation detail. There is no filler, though it omits necessary parameter 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level overview but leaves an agent without guidance on required filters, status values, or response behavior, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 by explaining parameters. It implicitly references the time period (start_date/end_date) and grouping (group_by=day), but it does not explain 'size', 'status', or the expected formats or constraints. The description adds only minimal value over the schema's bare property names.

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 purpose: a schedule of Rede's receivables showing when each sale is credited to the account, aggregated by day, including the next receipt date. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling financial tools like rede_extrato (statement) or rede_cobrancas (collections), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, use cases, or contrast with sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name and context that this is for scheduled receivables.

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