feegow_list_current_accounts

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

The description discloses that the operation is a query ('não altera dados') and notes the POST method, which provides baseline transparency. However, no annotations are present, and the description lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects (though it claims none). The mention of pagination in the body is helpful but incomplete for full behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence plus a parenthetical to convey the tool's nature, method, and key parameter constraints. Every word adds information, and the structure front-loads the category ('Financeiro') and purpose.

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 absence of an output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete by outlining the response structure or common return fields. It is sufficient for a basic list tool but lacks details that would help an agent handle pagination or interpret results correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by specifying that accountType accepts values 1, 2, or 3 and that pagination parameters are in the body, but it does not elaborate on the meaning of unity or the exact range of perpage. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 it retrieves a list of current accounts and explicitly marks it as a query (consulta), distinguishing it as a read operation despite using POST. It provides a specific resource (current accounts) and action (list), which helps differentiate it from siblings like feegow_list_invoices or feegow_list_sales.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, filters beyond the listed parameters, or scenarios where a different tool is more appropriate. The description assumes the agent knows when to list current accounts.

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