List Transactions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'filters,' which is already evident from the parameter schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior, filter combination logic, or response format, so it adds minimal value over the structured data.

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 one short sentence, so it is undeniably concise. However, it is essentially a Portuguese restatement of the title and contributes little additional information. It is not verbose, but it under-specifies rather than effectively using its concise form.

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 list tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return value details, pagination defaults, and filter semantics. The strong annotations mitigate safety concerns but do not compensate for the lack of operational context needed to use the tool 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 description coverage is only 25% for the parameters, so the description needed to compensate. It only states 'with filters,' offering no explanation of the eight parameters, how to combine them, or semantics like date ranges. The schema's enums and defaults provide some structure, but the tool description fails to enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Lista suas transacoes com filtros.' clearly states the tool lists transactions and supports filters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from singular getters like get_transaction and from other list tools by resource (transactions). However, it adds little beyond the title and doesn't explicitly highlight scope or contrast with siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_orders or list_cashouts. The description merely restates the function without mentioning other tools or exclusion criteria. This is 'no guidance' rather than implied usage.

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