consultar_conta_corrente

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 only implies a read operation ('Consulta') but does not explain error behavior, response format, or any access requirements. The non-destructive nature is implicit, not explicit, and no additional behavioral context is given.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately conveys the action and object. There is no redundancy or extra information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has two unspecified parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks details on how to identify the account, what data will be returned, or any contextual caveats. The short length is concise but fails to provide the necessary operational context for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the two input parameters ('codigo_integracao' and 'codigo_conta_corrente'). It offers no insight into which parameter to use, whether they are alternatives or complementary, or their format, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call from the description alone.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Consulta' = consult) and resource ('conta corrente específica' = specific current account), making it easy to understand what it does. The word 'específica' distinguishes it from list-all tools like 'listar_contas_correntes', and the sibling list includes many 'consultar_*' tools, but this one uniquely targets a single current account.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'listar_contas_correntes' or other consult tools. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be preferred.

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