resumo_antecipacoes

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 fails to disclose whether this is a read-only aggregation, whether it covers historical data, current pending anticipations, or both, what currency/fee conventions apply, or what the output structure looks like. For a summary/report tool with zero annotations and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that efficiently enumerates what the summary covers. No wasted words, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified rather than economically specific, which slightly reduces the score.

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?

This is a summary/report tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description enumerates coverable fields (installments, fees, average days, daily breakdown), but it doesn't answer key questions an agent would need: what time period values are valid, whether it aggregates all payables or filtered entities, or what the output shape is. For a tool positioned among 11 financial siblings, it needs more specificity to guide correct selection.

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 100%, so both parameters (inicio, fim) are documented as date strings in the schema. The description implies a date-range summary but adds no additional meaning about date format semantics (inclusive/exclusive), whether both are required for correct results, or what date range is valid. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it's a summary of anticipated payments covering antecipated installments, fees, average days anticipated, and breakdown by receipt day. It gives a clear subject and scope but uses a vague verb ('Resumo de') rather than naming a specific action like 'list' or 'calculate'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on anticipations, but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like resumo_financeiro.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention which scenarios call for this tool versus alternatives like resumo_financeiro or recebiveis_periodo. Users must infer usage solely from the French/Portuguese summary nature, and the differentiation from sibling tools is absent.

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