competencia_utils

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe any behavioral traits such as whether operations are read-only, whether they mutate state, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. The description only names formats and a target domain, adding no behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no repetition or bloat. Its second clause is somewhat promotional rather than informative, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loads the resource domain.

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 tool with 31 parameters, 11 enums, multiple operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is drastically insufficient. It does not explain the operation modes, return values, or usage scenarios, leaving almost all necessary context to the schema.

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 all 31 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource domain (competências in MM/YYYY, MM/YY, YY-MM formats) and a target audience (Brazilian accounting, fiscal, and financial systems). However, it calls itself only 'utilities' and never states a specific verb or action, leaving the tool's actual operations to be inferred from the schema. It also does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the sibling date_utils.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. The phrase 'Ideal para sistemas contábeis, fiscais e financeiros brasileiros' implies a broad domain where it is useful, but it does not say when an agent should choose this tool over date_utils or other siblings.

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