consultar_conta_pagar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation via 'Consulta' but does not disclose parameter requirements, error behavior, response structure, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a query tool.

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, front-loaded sentence. It communicates the core purpose with no extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete for a usable tool. It does not clarify how the two optional parameters interact, what 'detalhes' includes, or how the agent should structure the call when both/neither parameter is provided.

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 mention or explain the parameters (codigo_lancamento_omie, codigo_lancamento_integracao). It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to guess which identifier to provide and whether either is required.

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 function: 'Consulta detalhes de uma conta a pagar específica' (queries details of a specific accounts payable). The word 'específica' distinguishes this from sibling list tools like listar_contas_pagar, indicating a single-record lookup.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. It simply states the purpose without contextual or comparative information, leaving the agent to infer usage from names and schema.

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