olist_conta_receber_baixar

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only restates mutability and the confirmation flag, both already encoded in the schema's confirmar parameter (const true and 'operação mutável'). It adds no details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or postconditions.

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 short and front-loaded, containing the operation name, endpoint, documentation URL, and the key warning about mutation. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to the awkward 'ReceberAPI' phrasing and the slight clutter of including API version and endpoint in the same sentence.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides only the endpoint and the mutability requirement. It does not explain what 'baixar' means in terms of business outcomes, expected response, or the layout of the nested 'conta' object, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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%, with 'conta' described as 'Dados da conta conforme layout' and 'confirmar' explicitly noted as required confirmation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific operation 'Baixar Conta a Receber' and provides the exact API endpoint 'conta.receber.baixar', making the resource and action clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like olist_conta_receber_incluir and olist_conta_pagar_baixar by name and endpoint, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 explicitly states 'Esta operação altera dados e exige confirmar=true', giving clear context that this is a mutating operation requiring confirmation. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but this is sufficient guidance for a state-changing tool.

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