consultar_saldo

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds that results are broken out per account with a total, which is useful behavior beyond the annotations, but says nothing about freshness of the data (real-time vs. cached), permissions, or response structure.

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 short sentences with zero padding: the first states what is returned and at what granularity, the second gives the user-intent trigger. It is front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description usefully describes the shape of the result (per-account balances plus a total). Only the absence of any note on data currency or what an empty account list looks like keeps it short of fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and no schema meaning is left unexplained. The description correctly implies no input is required, matching the empty object 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 names the resource precisely (current balance of each financial account, bank and cash) plus the aggregate total, which is a concrete result rather than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like listar_contas_a_pagar, but the domain (account balances vs. payables/receivables) is distinct enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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?

It supplies one concrete usage trigger - the user question "qual meu saldo?" - which maps intent to tool well. It offers no alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not guidance, and there is no routing to listar_contas_a_pagar/a_receber for agents asking about pending amounts instead of balances.

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