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

Beyond annotations indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive tool, the description discloses side effects: updating the recibo_url in the financial record after generation. It also mentions bulk behavior. 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 concise, with each sentence adding essential information: purpose, data format, effect, return value, and bulk support. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

The description covers the main workflow and two key parameters, but lacks explanation for the required 'nome' and optional 'account' parameters. Given no output schema, the return value is adequately described.

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. It explains financeiro_id, dados_recibo (including the 6 fields), and financeiro_ids for bulk. However, it does not explain 'nome' and 'account' parameters, which remain ambiguous.

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 generates or updates a receipt for a financial record, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like webdiet_financeiro_list and webdiet_financeiro_write by focusing solely on receipt generation.

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 clear context: Pass the financeiro_id from webdiet_financeiro list. It also mentions bulk support via financeiro_ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist.

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