transacoes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds date format and the DEBIT/CREDIT output meaning, but omits whether 'ate' is inclusive, ordering, or pagination behavior; an output schema carries the return shape.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the filter default and value semantics; every sentence carries meaning.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers params and defaults adequately. Minor gaps remain around the inclusive/exclusive date boundary and result ordering, but the agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it specifies the date format (AAAA-MM-DD) for desde/ate and explains that conta_id defaults to all accounts. It does not clarify whether the ate bound is inclusive or how desde/ate interact.

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?

Clear verb+resource: it lists transactions within a date period and clarifies that omitting conta_id returns all accounts. It is distinguishable from listar_contas/saldo, though it never explicitly contrasts with gastos_por_categoria, which also deals with transaction data.

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 'sem conta_id, traz de todas as contas' note gives implied guidance on the optional filter, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules or named alternatives among the siblings (e.g., gastos_por_categoria for aggregated expense views).

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