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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds that it supports bulk execution via ids, marketplace_ids, etc., which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination behavior or response format, but given the annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 somewhat dense and lists many actions and parameters in a compact format, which is efficient but not well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists actions, but the formatting is a bit cluttered with parentheses and semicolons. It could be clearer with bullet points or separate sections.

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 20 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, the meaning of 'sub' values, or how bulk execution works in detail. The tool is complex, and the description only partially covers it, leaving the agent to guess on many aspects.

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 lists many parameters with brief context (e.g., 'ordered_at_ini/end YYYY-MM-DD', 'transaction_status', 'product_id'), but does not explain the meaning of all 20 parameters, especially the bulk arrays and 'sub' enum. The description adds some value but leaves many parameters undocumented, which is a significant gap given zero schema coverage.

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 this tool handles 'Vendas/transações no Guru (leitura)' and specifically the 'order_bumps' action, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like guru_transactions_get or guru_transactions_search. However, it bundles multiple actions in the description, and the tool name itself is 'guru_transactions_order_bumps', so the purpose is clear but slightly diluted by listing all actions.

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 lists available actions and their filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like guru_transactions_search or guru_transactions_get. It implies usage by listing the 'order_bumps' action, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools.

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