search_movements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses accent- and case-insensitive substring matching, the default 12-month window, the all-accounts scope, the most-recent-first ordering, and the returned total. It omits pagination/result limits, which is the only notable 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource; the search semantics, scope, default window, and return behavior each earn their clause with no 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 3-param search tool with no output schema, the description covers search semantics, date defaults, account scope, sort order, and the aggregate return. Only result-size/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: 'text' is matched partially against both descrição and notas and is accent/case-insensitive, and omitting from/to silently defaults to the last 12 months rather than being unbounded.

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 (Pesquisa) plus resource (movimentos) and the search key (descrição ou notas), and scopes it to all accounts including off-budget ones. It is distinguishable from list_movements by the text-search semantics, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Implies when to use it (text search over descriptions/notes) and supplies the fallback window when dates are omitted (last 12 months), which is real usage context. However, it never contrasts itself with list_movements or states any when-not condition, so routing is left to inference.

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