consultar_conta_pagar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only says 'consulta' (query). It does not disclose behavior when no record is found, whether permissions are needed, or that exactly one of the two codes should be provided. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 front-loads the purpose without any wasted words. However, the extreme brevity limits the explanatory content, which is a trade-off that prevents a perfect 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?

Given two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, expected response, or error scenarios, making it inadequate for reliable invocation by an agent.

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?

The input schema has two optional parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention them at all. The agent receives no help understanding the distinction between codigo_lancamento_omie and codigo_lancamento_integracao or how they should be used, making this a critical gap.

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 tool queries details of a specific accounts payable record ('Consulta detalhes de uma conta a pagar específica'). It uses a specific verb (consulta) and a clear resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like listar_contas_pagar, so it falls short of full distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus listing tools or how to supply the identifier. The word 'específica' hints at single-record use, but no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned.

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