TRCT transcrito -> pagamentos do contrato

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the output semantics: one payment per provento, the probable parcela derived from the field code under Portaria MTE 1.621/2010, and the conferências of field sums against totals. That is genuine behavioral detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with inputs then outputs, and every clause carries information (field shape, totals role, output shape, parcela rule, conferência). Dense but not padded; the parenthetical clauses add load without much waste.

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 nested 5-parameter transform with no output schema, the description covers input shape, output shape, the parcela-mapping rule, and the sum-check behavior. It stops short of detailing the conferência result format, but the essential contract is conveyed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds role meaning: 'campos' is the {codigo, descricao, valor, tipo P/D} list, 'totais' exists specifically to conferir a soma dos campos, and 'documento' is the TRCT id in contrato.documentos. It reinforces why each parameter exists rather than only restating it.

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?

Names a specific transformation: it takes transcribed TRCT fields/totals and returns contrato.pagamentos plus sum checks. No sibling tool does TRCT->payments conversion, so it is clearly distinguishable from the catalogo/calculo family. Verb+resource+output are all explicit.

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 implies a pipeline position ('Ligue cada pagamento à parcela do contrato antes de abater'), which tells the agent what to do with the result, but it never states when to prefer this tool or what alternative exists for the same job. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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