lancar_recebimento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or impact on related records. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core purpose in the fewest possible words, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is grossly inadequate. It provides only the basic action and lacks any context about prerequisites, required fields, or expected behavior, making it highly incomplete for effective tool selection and 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 mention any of the 10 parameters. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter meaning entirely to field names without any additional guidance.

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 verb 'Registra' (registers) and the resource 'recebimento de uma conta a receber' (receipt of an accounts receivable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lancar_pagamento' and 'cancelar_recebimento' by specifying the exact financial action.

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 recording a receivable payment but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like 'cancelar_recebimento' or contrast with other tools, so the usage context remains implicit.

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