Itens que exigem atenção

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it returns `unavailableSources` when a source could not be read, telling the agent the result may be partial and how that is signaled. It does not describe item ordering, volume, or whether 'próximas do vencimento' has a fixed window, which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and item enumeration, followed by the partial-failure caveat. The category list is dense with information rather than padding, and nothing is repeated from the title or schema beyond what is necessary.

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 usefully names what comes back (the four attention categories plus `unavailableSources`), which is the right level for this tool. It omits the per-item shape and whether the response is grouped by category or by source, a minor gap for a read-only, single-parameter 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 100%: the single `period` parameter already documents the YYYY-MM pattern and the default-to-current-month behavior. The description only echoes 'no mês', adding no new semantics such as a valid range or how a future period behaves. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the burden.

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 specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('os itens que precisam de atenção no mês') and enumerates the exact item categories returned: open invoices, overdue/near-due payables, over/near-limit budgets, and at-risk goals. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of a 5 because it never contrasts itself with the dashboard siblings (overview/snapshot), so differentiation relies on the reader inferring it from the name.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope: consult it for the current (or a given) month's attention-worthy items. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_dashboard_overview or get_dashboard_snapshot, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. what a 'near limit' threshold means). Adequate but leaves selection between sibling dashboards to inference.

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