incluir_conta_pagar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a payable, which is already implied by the tool name. It does not mention write side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, response behavior, or potential validation errors.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters and 5 required fields. The brevity is more omission than concision, lacking any essential contextual information.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain required input semantics, return values, error behavior, or any constraints, leaving the agent without sufficient information to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage across 11 parameters, and the description mentions no parameter details at all. The agent must rely on field names like codigo_categoria and data_previsao, which are not fully self-explanatory, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Cria uma nova conta a pagar no OMIE' clearly states a specific action (create) and resource (conta a pagar), and it naturally distinguishes the tool from siblings like incluir_conta_receber and consultar_conta_pagar.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a supplier/client code or valid category), and no mention of related lookup tools like consultar_conta_pagar. The usage context is only implicit.

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