recebiveis_periodo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (bruto, taxas, liquido, quantidade) but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it triggers synchronization, performance implications, or pagination behavior. Given the sibling 'sincronizar_payables' exists, the agent can't tell if this tool reads cached data or syncs first.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that communicates the purpose and output fields without waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and follows with the result details. No unnecessary filler.

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 filtered-list/reporting tool with 3 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from stating whether results are ordered by date, whether 'data de recebimento' differs from the period filter dates, and what 'bruto/taxas/liquido' mean financially. The lack of any behavioral or output-format disclosure leaves some gaps.

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%, so all three parameters (inicio, fim, status) are documented in the input schema with format hints and the status default. The description adds the meaning of the output grouping (por dia, por data de recebimento) but doesn't add parameter-level nuance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since schema handles the descriptions well.

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 it shows receivables grouped by day within a period, returning gross, fees, net, and quantity per receipt date. The verb 'Mostra' + resource 'recebiveis' is specific. It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like recebiveis_futuros (future receivables) by specifying period-based daily grouping, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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 implies usage for viewing daily-grouped receivable amounts in a period, and the required params (inicio, fim) establish a date range context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over recebiveis_futuros or fluxo_caixa, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. The status parameter's filter options are in the schema but not reinforced with usage guidance.

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