olist_conta_receber_obter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a read-only retrieval, what data is returned, error behavior, or any side effects. The word 'Obter' implies getting, but the description does not state what the agent should expect regarding the operation's behavior.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the endpoint name. However, it is under-specified and does not earn its place by adding meaningful information; it mostly repeats the tool name. The documentation link is valuable but the core content is tautological.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns or what the 'obter' operation entails. It fails to describe the return values, field availability based on the optional 'obter_link_boleto' parameter, or any fallback behavior. The documentation link might help, but the description itself is incomplete for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already provides meaningful descriptions for both 'id' and 'obter_link_boleto'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score 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 'Obter Conta a Receber API 2.0' essentially restates the tool name without explaining what a 'Conta a Receber' is or what the tool does beyond fetching. It adds an endpoint identifier and documentation link, but these do not clarify the resource or action. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling 'obter' tools.

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 like olist_contas_receber_pesquisa or olist_conta_receber_baixar. No context is provided about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description simply names the tool and provides a docs link, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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