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

The description states 'Exclui uma transação', which is an explicit destructive action, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The description does add useful behavioral context, such as Open Finance restrictions and bulk support, but the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 dense but well-organized: action, exclusions, routing, ID provenance, and bulk support. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though the relationship between the bulk support paragraph and the mass_delete_transactions recommendation could be slightly clearer.

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 description covers key invocation constraints and sibling routing, but leaves gaps around the delete_recurrence parameter, which parameter combinations are valid, and what the tool returns. The annotation contradiction also undermines completeness for a destructive operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that transaction_id/uuid must be copied from list/search/get and never invented, and mentions transaction_ids for bulk. However, it does not explain the delete_recurrence parameter's accepted values or clarify how the four parameters relate to one another.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Exclui uma transação' (deletes a transaction). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly routing recurrent transactions to delete_recurrence and multi-line deletions to mass_delete_transactions.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: automatic Open Finance transactions cannot be deleted, recurrent transactions should use delete_recurrence, and multiple lines should use mass_delete_transactions. It also provides a strong constraint on where transaction IDs must come from.

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