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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description need only add context; it contributes the endpoint identity and status-code semantics, which is modest added value. It says nothing about page size limits, ordering defaults, or response shape beyond what the schema already declares.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope. The trailing API endpoint reference is mildly redundant metadata but still earns its place for traceability.

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, the description leaves the returned payload entirely unspecified – an agent cannot tell which fields a payable row exposes or how status values appear in results. For a six-parameter list tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents page, dtIni, dtFim, filtro, orderBy, and situacao. The description's 10=open / 30=paid gloss merely repeats the schema's situacao description, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List accounts payable") plus the underlying API endpoint GET /v1/pagamentos, and decodes the situacao values inline. It implicitly separates itself from egestor_get_payable (singular) and egestor_list_receivables through the resource name, but never explicitly names those siblings.

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 date-range filtering and status codes hint at how to use it for open-vs-paid queries, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over egestor_get_payable for a single record, nor on pagination strategy or prerequisites.

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