listar_contas_pagar

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that listing is possible with filters, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, return format, or whether filters are exact or partial matches.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. There is no filler or unnecessary details. However, it is almost too terse, failing to include essential usage or parameter context.

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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to provide a complete understanding of the tool's capabilities and behavior, such as pagination, sorting, and filter semantics. It is adequate only for a very basic listing operation.

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, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It names three filter dimensions (status, period, supplier) but does not map them to actual parameter names like 'filtrar_por_status' or 'filtrar_cliente', nor does it explain formats for dates and ordering.

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 'Lista' and the resource 'contas a pagar', specifying it lists accounts payable with filter options. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'listar_contas_receber' (accounts receivable). However, there is a slight mismatch: it mentions 'fornecedor' while the schema uses 'filtrar_cliente', which may confuse.

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 alternatives such as 'consultar_conta_pagar' for a single account or 'listar_contas_receber' for receivables. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred.

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