listar_movimentos_financeiros

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 specifies the types of data returned (títulos, baixas, lançamentos de conta corrente), which is helpful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe pagination or sorting behavior, or mention any authentication requirements. For a listing tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and add a useful contrast with a sibling tool. There is no redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

For a tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It clearly defines the content scope but omits details about pagination, parameter semantics, and return format, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly construct a request. The complexity of the tool demands more guidance than 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?

The input schema has 15 parameters with zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate by explaining how filters work. However, it does not mention any parameter such as status, natureza, or date ranges, leaving their meaning and usage entirely to inference from their names. The description fails to provide the necessary parameter 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 that this tool performs a unified query of financial movements, including accounts payable/receivable, write-offs, and current account entries. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pesquisar_lancamentos_financeiros, which only returns titles, making its scope explicit.

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 explicitly names pesquisar_lancamentos_financeiros as an alternative and explains the key difference: this tool includes baixas (effective payments/receipts) while the sibling only returns titles. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention all other sibling tools.

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