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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) align with the description. The description adds behavioral context: client-side filtering, parallel aggregation, and pagination constraints, which are not covered by annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with key information. However, it mixes Portuguese and English and lacks clear separation between parameter rules, which slightly hampers readability.

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?

With 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential operational constraints but does not explain the return format or all parameter semantics, leaving gaps for a complex tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains constraints for some parameters (date range, amount filters, limit, keywords, accounts, next_page_start_key) but leaves many parameters (e.g., status, sorting, account_id, category_ids) unexplained, only partially compensating.

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 is a bank statement (transações) tool for retrieving transactions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like contasimples_statement_card and contasimples_balance by specifying the resource and scope.

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 explicit guidelines: start_date and end_date must be together or omitted, at most one amount filter, limit 1–50, optional keywords as client-side filter, and accounts parallel aggregation with pagination restrictions.

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