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

Beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful behavioral details: data availability lag, default date window, maximum range per call, and that only effectively deposited values are returned. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Each sentence adds value: what the tool returns, why it is used, and the availability/range constraints.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the burden falls on the description. It adequately covers return content and key constraints, but lacks explicit parameter semantics and output formatting details. It is viable but leaves clear gaps for an agent trying to construct exact arguments.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'período' and 'conta bancária favorecida' and gives constraints like 'Máximo de 92 dias por chamada', but it does not explain the expected date formats, whether dates are inclusive, how account values work, or the implications of all parameters being optional.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: Stone settlements for a period, the effectively deposited amounts, the total value, and the receiving bank account. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it is 'a ponta que fecha com o extrato bancário'.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this is the tool that reconciles with the bank statement. It also provides temporal guidance, such as same-day files being unavailable until after 5h the next day, the default range going up to yesterday, and the 92-day maximum per call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong.

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