indebito_acumulado

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the DAS due date convention, the late-payment caveat, that administrative requests do not interrupt the limitation period, that tables are calculated as published in law, and that classification/regime decisions are not covered.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, input structure, timing assumption, legal nuance, and scope boundary. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 complex tool involving legal deadlines and tax concepts, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the required inputs, the payment-reference rule, the limitation-period nuance, and the boundaries of the tool's responsibility. Since an output schema exists, the return-value details don't need to be described.

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 0%, but the description compensates by specifying that each competência must include ano, mes, rbt12, and revenue split by category. This is essential because the schema's array items are completely open with additionalProperties: true. The anexo parameter is already constrained by its enum, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 a specific verb and resource: it 'sums the undue payment' for those who resold without segregating monophasic revenue or ICMS-ST, and 'separates' amounts still within the five-year CTN limitation period from those already prescribed. This specificity distinguishes it from siblings like calcular_das and quantificar_segregacao without needing to name them.

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 clearly identifies the target use case (resellers who did not segregate monophasic revenue or ICMS-ST) and instructs the user to pass a list of competências. It also sets exclusions, such as 'não é assessoria fiscal,' but it does not explicitly name when to prefer this tool over an alternative sibling.

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