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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral value beyond the annotations by disclosing the default 90-day window and the available filtering modes (status and date interval), which are not present in the schema or 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 only two concise Portuguese sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key default behavior and filtering options. It contains no filler and does not restate information already in the schema enums.

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 read-only, idempotent list operation with no required parameters and good annotation coverage, the description covers the main call patterns: a plain call returning the last 90 days, a status-filtered call, and a date-interval call. It is complete enough for basic use, though the unexplained account parameter and missing date format leave minor 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does explain that status is a filter and that initial_date + final_date + filter_date form a date-interval grouping, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it leaves the account parameter and date format requirements unexplained, so parameter understanding is incomplete.

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 "Lista as transações da conta PagHiper," a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies this as a transaction-listing operation. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like paghiper_get_boleto_status or paghiper_get_pix_status, which target individual payment items rather than the full account transaction set.

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 useful invocation context: without a date range, the API returns the last 90 days, and users can filter by status or a date interval. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling status/account tools or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly excluding alternatives.

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