Check a customer's contracted hours versus used hours for the current month to monitor service consumption and remaining balance.
Consulta horas contratadas vs usadas no mes corrente. Nao altera dados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Id interno ou email do cliente. | |
| customer_type_id | No | I = id interno, E = email. Padrao I. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Nao altera dados' (does not alter data), which is a key behavioral trait for a read-only query, and it scopes behavior to the current month. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or errors, but for this simple query the critical safety property is disclosed.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the main action/resource first, then communicates the read-only safety property. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple, parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description conveys the core result (contracted vs used hours in the current month). No output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return fields, but it could have added a bit more context about permissions or response structure.
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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the general purpose of the tool, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Consulta') and a specific resource ('horas contratadas vs usadas no mes corrente'), clearly stating what the tool does. The tool name and description are unique among siblings, and the read-only nature is included in the description.
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 intended usage is implied by the description: use it to query contracted vs used hours in the current month. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives, though no sibling directly overlaps with this function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.