list_movements

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses ordering by date, the signed-amount convention (negative = outflow), that imports and manual entries are both included, and that the returned `id` feeds update_movement, delete_movement and consolidate_movements. It omits any statement about result limits/pagination or permissions, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the filter behavior, then the sibling routing and id semantics, all in three compact sentences in the domain language. Dense but each clause carries distinct information; the field enumeration is slightly heavy but earns its place given no output schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return fields, ordering, sign convention, filter behavior, sibling routing and downstream id usage — enough to call the tool correctly. It could be more complete about volume limits or whether results are paginated.

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% and already documents year/month, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning the schema lacks — that the category filter is partial and accent-insensitive ("parcial, sem acentos"), which materially affects how the agent should pass that argument.

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?

States a specific verb (listar) and resource (movimentos) scoped to one month of 1fluxo, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_movements for multi-month text search. It also enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows exactly what this list call yields.

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?

Names the alternative (search_movements) and the condition that selects it (text search across several months), which is clear routing guidance. It does not state explicit when-not conditions for this tool itself, so it falls short of a full 5.

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