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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description's '[write, altera dados]' tag merely restates that same fact. The description does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is reversible via the estornar sibling, or what state the expense must be in to be liquidated. It adds almost no behavioral context beyond the 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?

Three short fragments that front-load the purpose and include the endpoint with no wasted prose. The brevity, however, borders on under-specification rather than efficient completeness, since nothing beyond the basic action is conveyed.

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 three undocumented parameters, zero required parameters, and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: parameter semantics, payload format, expected response, and differentiation within the large despesas sibling family. The agent is left guessing on essentially every decision.

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% and none of the three string parameters (body, query, account) carries a description or is required. The description names the endpoint but never explains which parameter holds the expense identifier or what payload shape is expected, so an agent cannot construct a valid request from the available information.

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 a concrete action and resource ('Liquidar despesa' — settle an expense) plus the exact HTTP endpoint (PUT /despesas/liquidar), so an agent can tell it apart at a surface level from sibling operations like delete, create, or estornar. However, it never defines what 'liquidar' actually entails (marking as paid? finalizing a status?), leaving room for interpretation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the closely related despesas siblings, such as superlogica_despesas_estornar (to reverse a settlement), superlogica_despesas_delete, or superlogica_despesas_create. No prerequisites, ordering, or status conditions for the expense are mentioned.

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