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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates a write operation, and the description adds the crucial context that this is an accounting entry ('movimento contábil') rather than a real transfer. However, it does not disclose idempotency, permission requirements, or side effects on balances.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes essential clarifications without fluff. Every phrase adds value.

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 tool is a simple, non-destructive mutation with no output schema. The description covers purpose, key exclusions, and parameter semantics, but lacks error-condition details and return behavior. Sufficient for its apparent scope.

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 explains 'value' and 'date' (including the default of today), but it does not clarify the expected format or semantics of from_bank/to_bank beyond identifying them as the user's banks/accounts. Partial compensation for the missing schema detail.

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 the tool registers a transfer between the user's own banks/accounts and explicitly distinguishes it from a real bank transfer. The verb 'Registra' and the resource 'transferência entre dois bancos/contas' make the action specific and differentiate it from sibling tools like poupa_add_transaction.

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 clear context: it is for accounting movements between the user's own accounts, not real bank transfers. This implies when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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