consultar_conta_receber

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'consulta' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about needing at least one identifier, potential errors, or the nature of the returned details. This leaves the agent guessing about invocation requirements.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it terse and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise: omitting essential usage and parameter details prevents it from being fully effective.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide extra context about identified parameters, invocation semantics, and expected results. It provides none of this, making it incomplete for reliable tool selection and correct invocation.

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 compensate. It does not explain 'codigo_lancamento_omie' or 'codigo_lancamento_integracao', their roles, or that at least one might be required. The agent is left without the necessary meaning to populate parameters correctly.

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 uses the specific verb 'consulta' (query) and names the resource 'conta a receber' (accounts receivable), explicitly noting 'específica' to indicate it targets a single record. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'listar_contas_receber' which lists many.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is intended for fetching a specific account receivable, nor does it note that an identifier is needed or how to choose between the two code parameters.

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