fluxo_pedido

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the local-DB-vs-API fallback behavior, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any auth/permission needs, or latency implications of API fallback. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more context is needed.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, ending with the data-source fallback note. No wasted words, though it could add alternative-tool differentiation without much length.

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 single-parameter, read-oriented view tool, the description covers the essence. However, lacking annotations and output schema, it would benefit from noting whether results include all historical parcels, any pagination/sorting, and clearer mutation-safety implications - leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 coverage is 100% and there's only 1 required parameter ('pedido'). The description adds meaning by clarifying the parameter is a specific order number and that the response includes parcelas, taxas, and status - value beyond the schema's bare field description.

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?

Description states specific verb ('Mostra') + resource ('fluxo de recebimento de um pedido especifico') and enumerates content (parcelas, taxas, datas, status). It's distinct from siblings like buscar_pedido (order lookup) and fluxo_caixa (cash flow), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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 implicitly conveys usage (when you want installment/settlement flow for a specific order), but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or exclusions. The line about local DB vs API is a data-source note, not usage direction.

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