olist_contas_receber_pesquisa

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Search Accounts Receivable' and gives a documentation link, without mentioning that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the response looks like. The agent cannot infer the return format or side effects.

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 followed by a documentation URL, which is concise and front-loaded. It avoids fluff and directly states the purpose. However, it is far too brief to convey necessary behavioral or usage context, so it is not optimally structured for an MCP tool definition.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to paginate, what the date filters mean, or any limitations. The documentation link is useful but not a substitute for inline completeness. The agent would need to follow the URL to understand basic behavior.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 10 parameters having a concise description in Portuguese. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies. While the schema alone defines the parameters, the description does not compensate for any missing context about how parameters interact (e.g., date ranges, mutually exclusive filters).

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 clearly states 'Pesquisar Contas a Receber' (Search Accounts Receivable), which is a specific verb+resource. It identifies the endpoint and documentation link. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'olist_conta_receber_obter' (get) or 'olist_contas_pagar_pesquisa' (search payable), the resource name makes it clear this is for searching accounts receivable, which is a distinct operation. However, it lacks additional scope details.

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. It does not mention that it is for listing/filtering accounts receivable, nor does it reference sibling tools for obtaining a single record or handling payable accounts. The description only points to the endpoint and documentation, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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