simba_list_movements_by_person_and_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Lista movimentacoes') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination, what format the movements are returned in, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values in the description) and only 2 required parameters. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description should do more to compensate - particularly explaining parameter formats and behavioral characteristics. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant 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 0%, meaning neither parameter has any description in the schema. The description mentions 'por pessoa e identificador de arquivo' which hints that parameters relate to person and file identifier, but doesn't specify which parameter corresponds to which concept, what format they expect (CPF/CNPJ format for person?), or provide any meaningful semantic context beyond the minimal hint.

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 the verb ('Lista' - List) and resource ('movimentacoes do SIMBA' - SIMBA movements) with filtering criteria ('por pessoa e identificador de arquivo' - by person and file identifier). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'simba_list_movements_by_src' or 'simba_list_accounts_by_person'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for listing SIMBA data (e.g., 'simba_list_movements_by_src', 'simba_list_accounts_by_person'), but the description doesn't explain when this specific person+file filtering approach is appropriate versus other filtering methods.

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