consultar_meios_pagamento_trimestral

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Consulta' implies a read-only operation, and the resource phrase indicates what data is returned. The format caveat adds context about how trimestre is interpreted. However, nothing is disclosed about pagination behavior, OData filtering, result limits, or response shape, which matters given there is no output schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with purpose stated first and the format rule second. The second sentence is redundant with the schema's trimestre description, but it is short and usefully emphasizes the only required parameter. No wasted words overall.

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?

For a straightforward read-query tool, the purpose and the required parameter's format are adequately covered. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description offers no hints about the response contents, nor does it route the agent between the quarterly and monthly variants. Adequate 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%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the description. The description's YYYYQ guidance for trimestre merely restates what the schema already documents ('Ano e trimestre no formato YYYYQ'), adding no new meaning; top, skip, and filtro are left entirely to the schema. The description neither compensates for gaps nor adds value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('dados trimestrais sobre operações com cartões de pagamento e transferências de crédito'), making the tool's subject matter clear. The word 'trimestrais' implicitly distinguishes it from the monthly sibling consultar_meios_pagamento_mensal, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 only guidance offered is the YYYYQ format instruction for the trimestre parameter, which is a parameter-format rule rather than tool-selection guidance. There is no statement about when to use this tool versus consultar_meios_pagamento_mensal or the other transaction-query siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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