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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's bar is lower. It adds useful context (the underlying GET /v1/recebimentos endpoint and what status 20/40 mean), but says nothing about pagination limits, total counts, or empty-result behavior beyond what the page parameter schema already states.

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 short sentences with no waste — the core action and its filters come first, followed by the endpoint reference. Every element earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and data source adequately. It stops short of describing the shape of returned receivables or default sort behavior, a minor gap given no output schema exists to carry that.

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 all six parameters (page, dtIni, dtFim, filtro, orderBy, situacao) are already documented in the schema. The description's parenthetical about 20=open/40=received merely restates the situacao schema description, adding no new semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 receivable") plus its status-code semantics and date-range filtering. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular egestor_get_receivable in concept, but it never names the sibling or clarifies the list-vs-get split, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies when this tool is used (browsing receivables within a date range) and explains the situacao filter values. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use egestor_get_receivable versus this list tool, or when to prefer the payables counterpart, so usage is left to inference.

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