resumo_financeiro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what the summary contains (a useful aggregation detail), but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only aggregation, whether data comes from cached/synced sources (relevant given 'sincronizar_*' siblings exist), or any side effects. The content breakdown is helpful but misses operational traits like freshness/currency of data.

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?

Single sentence, dense with information, no wasted words. The content list is efficiently enumerated. Could be more concise structurally but it's appropriately compact for the breadth of content it covers.

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 summary/report tool with fully-described parameters (100% coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the report's contents. The listed fields (entradas, saidas, taxas, antecipacoes, liquido, method/type breakdown) give a solid expectation of what's returned. Slightly more could be said about how the summary relates to other financial tools, but completeness is decent for this complexity level.

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%, meaning both parameters (inicio, fim) already have descriptions in the schema ('Data inicio (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline rule for >80% schema coverage, a 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 clearly states the verb+resource scope: provides a 'resumo financeiro completo' (complete financial summary) for a period, listing exact contents (entradas, saidas, taxas, antecipacoes, liquido, operacoes, dias com movimento, method/type breakdown). The specificity of the listed fields distinguishes it from general tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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 a date-period (inicio/fim) financial summary, which gives clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like 'fluxo_caixa', 'recebiveis_periodo', or 'resumo_antecipacoes'. With many financial sibling tools, explicit differentiation would be valuable but is absent.

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