consultar_parcela

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description contributes the returned field set (amount, remaining balance, due date, ownership), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown or invalid.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (fields returned) earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned, which compensates for the absent output schema. The missing piece is not-found/error behavior, so not a 5.

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 carry the parameter meaning. It only says the lookup is "pelo id", which the property name id_parcela and its uuid format already convey; no detail on whether the id is the installment id versus an account or client id. Barely minimum viable.

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?

"Detalhe de uma parcela pelo id" states a specific verb (detail/fetch) and resource (a single installment), and the phrase "pelo id" signals a single-record lookup in contrast to the listar_* siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it already has an installment id, versus listar_contas_a_pagar when it does not. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the alternative list tool.

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