Acertos entre pessoas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful semantics about the payload: it is an aggregated summary per person including recorded settlements, not a raw transaction list. It does not explain behavior when the period is omitted, which matters since the parameter is optional.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that defines the returned view before any qualifiers. No redundant restatement of annotations or schema. Slightly dense but nothing extraneous.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin: it lacks the omitted-period behavior and any differentiation from sibling balance/summary tools. Given the crowded sibling set, more routing context would be expected.

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?

The only parameter is period, with 0% schema description coverage; the description mirrors it via 'no período' but adds no format or default semantics. Because the parameter is optional (0 required), the gap around what happens when it is omitted is the most consequential omission. Minimal compensation for the coverage gap.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: a per-person summary of what each person owes the account holder (or holds as credit) for a given period, including already-registered settlements. An agent can tell this is an aggregated, multi-person view. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely named siblings such as get_person_balance or get_person_summary, leaving overlap to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The only implicit guidance is that it returns period-scoped data across all people. An agent facing get_person_balance and get_person_summary has no textual basis for choosing this tool.

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