listar_contas_receber

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It mentions listing with filters but fails to disclose pagination behavior, default filters, output format, or the distinction between due-date and issue-date filtering. The agent is left without critical behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. No fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having 12 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is only one sentence long. It does not explain default behavior, pagination, return structure, or the meaning of the two date-range filters, making it insufficient for correct invocation in many scenarios.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions status, period, and client filters (approximately 3 of 12 parameters), ignoring pagination, sorting, order direction, conta corrente, and issue-date filters. The schema titles provide basic labels, but the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 lists accounts receivable ('contas a receber') with filters for status, period, and client. It uses a specific verb and resource, making it easy to distinguish from related tools like consultar_conta_receber or listar_contas_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listar_contas_pagar, consultar_conta_receber, or listar_titulos_em_aberto. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the selection decision to the agent without any exclusions or alternative hints.

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