olist_conta_pagar_obter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe the return value, side effects, potential errors, or permission requirements. The verb 'Obter' (get) implies a read operation, but it is not explicitly stated whether this is safe, and no behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the endpoint and documentation link.

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 very short and front-loaded, conveying the purpose in the first word 'Obter' and including a documentation link for further reference. It is not verbose, but it also does not add much value beyond repeating the tool's name and providing the endpoint. The structure is efficient, though the endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the description.

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 is a simple get-by-ID tool with one required parameter and no output schema, but the description is still minimal. It lacks any explanation of what the tool returns, when to use it, or any behavioral details. Given that the agent must infer the tool's effect solely from the name and endpoint, the description is not complete enough for reliable selection and invocation.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter, which includes a description ('Número de identificação da conta a pagar na Olist'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter format or usage, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides the necessary semantics.

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 states 'Obter Conta a Pagar' which clearly indicates a get operation for payable accounts. The endpoint reference 'conta.pagar.obter' reinforces the resource and action, and the tool is differentiated from sibling search tools like 'olist_contas_pagar_pesquisa' by its singular 'obter' (get) focus. However, it does not explicitly say 'retrieves a single payable account by ID,' relying on the name and schema for that inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention that it is for retrieving a specific account when the ID is known, nor any distinction from the search tool or the related receivable account tool. The only context is the endpoint name, which implies usage but does not explicitly instruct the agent.

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