consultar_fluxo_caixa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility. The verb 'consulta' indicates a read operation, and the description adds the core comparison behavior. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, error conditions, or any additional side effects beyond the obvious read-only nature.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states what the tool does. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple, with two obvious integer parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the core function and output essence (comparison by category), which is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about the response structure, possible empty results, and any usage limitations, leaving the agent with some uncertainty.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'ano' and 'mes' parameters beyond referencing 'do mês'. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description does not enrich their semantics (e.g., format, ranges, or rationale), leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's basic type/required fields.

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 a specific verb 'Consulta' (queries) and a clear resource: the month's cash flow, further refined by the unique comparison of forecast vs actual values by financial category. This distinguishes it from sibling financial query tools that focus on balances, transactions, or summaries.

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 implies usage for monthly cash flow analysis with forecast vs actual comparison, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives like 'obter_resumo_financeiro' or 'consultar_extrato_bancario', nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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