consultar_extrato_bancario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return result (all transactions and balance) and the OMIE requirement for an account code. However, it does not mention behavior like date format expectations, pagination, potential errors when neither code is provided, or the meaning of exibir_apenas_saldo.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return content, and parameter prerequisite/discovery.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use case, return values, and required parameter alternatives. It falls short only on minor details like date format and the exibir_apenas_saldo flag, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the purpose of codigo_conta_corrente and codigo_integracao_conta (alternatives, one required) and how to obtain them. It only vaguely ties data_inicio/data_fim to 'período' and does not explain exibir_apenas_saldo, leaving gaps.

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 ('Consulta'), the resource ('extrato bancário de uma conta corrente'), and the scope ('em um período'), plus the return content ('todos os lançamentos e o saldo do período'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like consultar_conta_corrente by focusing on the statement/transactions over a period.

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 gives explicit instructions: inform one of the two account codes because OMIE requires one, and use listar_contas_correntes to discover the code (nCodCC). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like listar_lancamentos_bancarios, but the requirement and prerequisite are clear.

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