lancar_pagamento

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a payment write-off but does not explain side effects, such as whether the payment is reversible, how it affects the account balance, or if any validation occurs. This is insufficient for a financial mutation.

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 fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters. It is not a tautology, but lacks the depth expected for such a complex operation.

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 has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only restates its basic purpose, omitting all contextual details needed for correct invocation, such as required parameter semantics and expected effects.

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 adds no parameter information. Parameters like 'juros', 'multa', 'desconto', and 'conciliar_documento' are left completely unexplained.

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: 'Registra o pagamento (baixa) de uma conta a pagar' (registers the payment/write-off of an accounts payable). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'incluir_conta_pagar' (create accounts payable) and 'lancar_recebimento' (record receivable).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., 'cancelar_pagamento_conta_pagar') would be preferable.

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