recebiveis_futuros

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

The description discloses that it filters by waiting_funds status and groups by day. It presents a read-only informational view. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and while it explains the filtering behavior, it doesn't state whether this is a safe read-only operation or any rate/performance characteristics.

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 sentence with a second sentence providing practical context. It is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly more could be said but it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 zero-parameter tool with an explanatory description, this is fairly complete. The 'waiting_funds' status filter and daily grouping are explained. However, it doesn't describe the output format or whether data is shown for a default time window (e.g., all time vs. a specific range), which could be ambiguous for the agent.

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?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing to document beyond what's already in the schema, and the description correctly explains the default behavior (grouped by day, waiting_funds filter) since there are no parameters to configure.

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 shows receivables with 'waiting_funds' status grouped by day. It uses a specific verb ('Mostra'/'Shows') with a clear resource (receivables grouped by day). It distinguishes itself from siblings like recebiveis_periodo by specifying the waiting_funds status filter and daily grouping.

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 gives practical context ('Util para ver o que esta programado para cair na conta'), implying this is for viewing scheduled incoming funds. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like recebiveis_periodo, though sibling names suggest such alternatives exist.

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