recibo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth profile ('Aberto, sem chave' – open, no key required) and the immutability/verifiability guarantee (sha256 proving the result hasn't changed). It does not spell out error behavior for an invalid or unknown id, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then progressively adds the receipt contents, the parameter origin, and the auth posture. Three dense sentences with no filler; slightly verbose in enumerating receipt fields but each clause contributes information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both, and it does: it lists the return payload (question, as_of, version, result, sha256) and the access model. Only minor gaps remain (invalid-id/error handling), which is acceptable for a single-parameter read tool.

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% (only a type/title for `id_recibo`), so the description must compensate. It does so meaningfully by telling the agent exactly where the parameter value comes from ('vem do campo do recibo na resposta de screener(recibo=True)'), which is the critical semantic an agent needs to supply a valid value.

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 (lê/reads) and resource (RECIBO), then defines precisely what a receipt is: a frozen screener query with its question, as_of cutoff, data version, result, and sha256. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `screener` by explaining that the receipt is the frozen artifact produced by `screener(recibo=True)`. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 context for use: the `id_recibo` originates from the receipt field in a `screener(recibo=True)` response, and the tool is meant for citation verification ('quem recebe a citação precisa conseguir conferir'). It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the origin and purpose are unambiguous.

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