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

No annotations are provided, and the description merely states the action without disclosing effects, permissions, return values, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 extremely brief (three words), which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly a tautology with the tool name. It lacks the substance expected for a tool with multiple parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and the absence of annotations, the one-phrase description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool does after invocation, what output to expect, or any constraints.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters (name, type, default, description). The agent receives no explanation of parameter meaning beyond the schema's basic types and examples.

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 'Criar conta bancária' clearly indicates the action (create) and the resource (bank account), matching the tool name. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling create tools like createCategory or createTransaction, relying solely on the resource name for distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updateAccount or deleteAccount, nor any prerequisites or context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Criar categoria' discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, validation rules, or return behavior, leaving the agent completely in the dark about the mutation's implications.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any useful structure or content, failing to earn its place as a meaningful explanation for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature, the three parameters, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain the purpose, usage, or behavioral nuances, making it impossible for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool without additional context.

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?

The description adds no information about the three parameters (name, color, parent_id). Schema coverage is only 33% (only color has a description), and the description does not compensate for the missing semantics of name or parent_id. The agent must rely solely on names and types, which are insufficient.

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 'Criar categoria' is a Portuguese translation of the tool name 'createCategory', providing no additional specificity beyond restating the name. It is a tautology and does not distinguish the tool's exact scope or behavior from sibling tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updateCategory, deleteCategory, or createAccount. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, required permissions, return behavior, or any post-creation details. The phrase 'Criar cartão de crédito' provides no additional context beyond the tool's name.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential information about parameters and behavior, so it does not earn its place as a helpful boundary artifact. It is not front-loaded with useful content; it is simply a phrase.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 required parameters), lack of annotations, and existing output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does beyond the name, how the parameters influence creation, or what the response will contain. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 40%, and the description does not compensate. It does not mention any parameters, their meanings, or how they map to the creation process. The minimal coverage from the schema is insufficient, and the description adds zero value for 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 'Criar cartão de crédito' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (credit card), distinguishing it from siblings like updateCreditCard and deleteCreditCard. It uses a specific verb and resource combination, meeting the highest bar for purpose clarity.

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. The description merely restates the action without mentioning scenarios like 'use this to add a new credit card' or exclusions. Context is implied only by the verb, not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden but only restates the creation action and the transaction types. It does not disclose side effects like balance updates, prerequisites like existing account/category IDs, or reversibility. The word 'Cria' already implies mutation, so no additional behavioral insight is offered.

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 with no filler, starting with the verb and delivering the key scope immediately. It earns its place, though its brevity limits information content.

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 complex creation tool with 10 parameters and 5 required, the description lacks usage guidelines, side-effect disclosure, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value documentation, but the overall context remains severely incomplete.

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?

The description provides no parameter-level semantics; it does not explain 'account_id', 'category_id', 'amount_cents', or the periodicity fields in recurrence/installments objects. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only indirect help is the mention of 'recorrentes' and 'parceladas', which hints at the recurrence_attributes and installments_attributes parameters. This is insufficient for 10 parameters.

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 uses the verb 'Cria' (creates) with the resource 'movimentações' (transactions) and specifies scope: 'simples, recorrentes (fixas) ou parceladas' (simple, recurring, or installment). This distinguishes it from sibling createTransfer, which handles transfers rather than general 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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided, such as when to choose this over createTransfer or updateTransaction. The intended use is only implied by the resource name 'movimentações' and the tool name, but no exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful constraint: credit cards are not accepted. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the transfer is reversible, whether it requires special permissions, or how errors are handled. Thus, it provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two short sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable constraint without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 8 parameters with 4 required, and no annotations are provided. The description does not explain the required fields, prerequisites, or how this tool differs from alternatives like 'createTransaction'. The output schema exists, but the input side is under-specified, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly use the tool in all cases.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, and the schema description coverage is only 25%. The schema itself provides some descriptions for debit/credit account IDs and amount_cents, but the tool description adds no additional meaning. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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's purpose: 'Cria uma transferência entre duas contas' (Creates a transfer between two accounts), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from similar tools by explicitly excluding credit cards, which is particularly relevant given the sibling tool 'createTransaction'.

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 for when to use the tool: when creating a transfer between two accounts. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('Cartões de crédito não são aceitos'), indicating when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like 'createTransaction' for other cases, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'delete'. It does not mention irreversibility, potential side effects on transactions/balances, or required permissions. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for a destructive operation.

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, short, front-loaded phrase with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasting tokens.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description fails to address crucial context for a deletion operation: what happens to related data, whether the action is reversible, and error conditions. This incompleteness is risky for an autonomous agent.

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?

The schema has one 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description links it to a bank account, giving some context. It does not add details like 'the id of the account to delete', but for a single 'id' field this is minimally adequate.

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 'Excluir conta bancária' (Delete bank account) provides a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like deleteCreditCard, deleteCategory, and deleteTransaction. It leaves no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It merely states the action without explaining conditions or exceptions, so the agent gets no help in selecting this over other delete tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that replacement_id can move transactions, but it fails to state the default behavior when no replacement is provided — a critical safety concern for a destructive operation. Permissions, irreversibility, and impact on existing data are unmentioned.

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, succinct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the context ('Ao excluir') and delivers a specific, important behavioral detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this is a destructive operation with no annotations, and the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain deletion consequences (e.g., what happens to transactions if replacement_id is omitted), prerequisites, or side effects. For a delete tool, this is incomplete.

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 50% (only replacement_id has a description). The description essentially duplicates the replacement_id semantics already in the schema ('mover as movimentações') without adding new information. The 'id' parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving a gap.

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 uses the verb 'excluir' (delete) and hints at moving transactions via replacement_id, but it never explicitly names the resource (category). The purpose is vague without the tool name; it could apply to any deletable entity. It does distinguish sibling deletes by mentioning transaction migration, but the resource is not stated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleteAccount, deleteCreditCard). It only explains an optional parameter behavior, not usage scenarios or prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'delete' without mentioning permanence, side effects on related data (e.g., invoices), permissions, or any destructive implications. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short phrase with no extraneous words. It is concise but under-specified, earning a moderate score for structure.

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 simple (one parameter, output schema exists), but the description lacks critical safety context for a destructive operation. It does not inform the agent about consequences or prerequisites, making the description incomplete despite the schema presence.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'id' with no description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the meaning of 'id' to be inferred. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, though the parameter is a simple identifier.

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 'Excluir cartão de crédito' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (credit card), distinguishing it from sibling delete tools by resource. However, it is simply a translation of the tool name and adds no additional specificity or scope.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'delete transaction' and omits critical details such as irreversibility, effects on recurring occurrences, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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 three words, which is under-specified rather than concise. While it contains no fluff, it does not convey enough information to be useful; it is essentially a translation of the tool name with no added structure or elaboration.

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 is grossly incomplete for a tool with three parameters and a recurring-transaction feature. It fails to mention how the delete behaves for recurring transactions (whether it deletes only one occurrence, all, or future ones), which is a central aspect of the tool's functionality.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for update_all and update_future, but the required 'id' parameter lacks a description. The tool description does not clarify that 'id' identifies the transaction or explain how the boolean flags modify deletion behavior, failing to compensate for the 33% schema coverage gap.

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 'Excluir movimentação' directly translates to 'Delete transaction,' which essentially restates the tool name 'deleteTransaction.' It does not elaborate on the tool's scope (e.g., that it handles recurring transactions) and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like deleteTransfer or deleteAccount.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to choose deleteTransaction over alternatives, nor does it mention the optional recurring-related parameters (update_all, update_future) that are central to using the tool correctly.

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

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

With no annotations and no behavioral details, the description falls entirely short. It does not disclose that deletion is irreversible, whether cascading effects occur, authentication requirements, or what happens if the transfer does not exist.

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 short phrase, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential context that would make the description useful, so the brevity is not earned.

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?

Despite the simple one-parameter schema, a delete operation requires clarity on irreversibility, authorization, and error behavior. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the complete absence of behavioral context, so the description is not complete enough for an AI to use the tool confidently.

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?

The input schema defines a single 'id' integer with no description, and the tool description adds no parameter information. The parameter's role is inferable from the tool name, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should explicitly identify 'id' as the transfer ID to delete.

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 'Excluir transferência' translates to 'Delete transfer,' which is a direct translation of the tool name itself. It states the action and resource but adds no new information beyond the name, making it effectively tautological.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleteTransaction or deleteAccount, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions.

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

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

The description only states the action of detailing an account and does not disclose read-only behavior, error conditions, permissions, or side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise, consisting of a single sentence with a clear subject and verb. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, respecting the agent's attention.

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?

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description lacks usage context, differentiation from getAccounts, and parameter clarification. The minimal description is insufficient for complete selection and invocation, especially with no annotations.

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?

The input schema defines an 'id' parameter but provides no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description likewise does not explain what the 'id' represents or how to provide it, failing to compensate for the missing schema information.

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 'Detalhar conta bancária' clearly specifies the action (detalhar/detail) and the resource (conta bancária/bank account). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getAccounts (which lists accounts) and create/update/delete, which have different purposes.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to call this tool versus getAccounts or other related tools, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left without context for appropriate selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Listar contas bancárias' without disclosing whether it returns all accounts, requires authentication, has pagination, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not explicitly confirmed.

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 two words in Portuguese, extremely concise and front-loaded. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description is minimal but clear. However, it lacks explicit statements about scope (e.g., 'all accounts') or usage context, making it barely adequate for a simple listing tool.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to convey. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add any parameter semantics.

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 'Listar contas bancárias' uses a specific verb ('Listar') and resource ('contas bancárias'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like getAccount by the plural form, indicating it retrieves multiple accounts rather than a single one.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as getAccount, createAccount, or updateAccount. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only conveys that the tool produces a balance report. It does not state whether it is read-only, how defaults work, or any aggregation behavior, relying entirely on the input schema.

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, directly stated phrase with no filler, making it concise. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices informative value, though structural clarity is still adequate.

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 report tool with 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the report's purpose, when to prefer it over getAccounts, or how the parameters affect behavior; the schema covers details but the description fails to orient the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Obter relatório de saldos' = get balance report), clearly indicating a read/report operation. However, it does not define the scope (all accounts vs individual) or explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getAccounts/getAccount.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getAccounts or getAccount. The description gives no context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list' but does not mention safety (e.g., read-only), permissions, sorting, pagination, or what the response includes beyond the output schema. This is a minimal disclosure for a potentially read-only operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It delivers the essential purpose efficiently.

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 0-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate context about scope (current month). It does not explain how it differs from getMonthBudgets, which could be a gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple list 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no user inputs are needed, and the empty schema confirms this. No additional parameter explanation is required.

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 a specific verb ('Listar') and resource ('metas do mês atual'), identifying the tool's function as listing current month budget goals. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getYearBudgets and getMonthBudgets by scoping to the current month, though overlap with getMonthBudgets is possible.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getMonthBudgets or getYearBudgets. The description simply states what it does without noting exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is a bare restatement of the tool's name ('List categories'). It discloses no behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, pagination, ordering, or whether it returns all categories. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and fails to add context.

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 extremely concise with one short phrase. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks any context about the nature of categories or the scope of the listing (e.g., whether it includes all categories or some subset). This leaves a small gap for a simple read 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids adding any.

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 'Listar categorias' clearly states the tool lists categories, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling getCategory (singular) by implying the collection operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state scope (e.g., all categories) and is in Portuguese while the tool name is English.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools like getCategory, createCategory, or updateCategory. The description offers no context for choosing this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Detalhar categoria', which does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the category is not found, or any error behavior. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description adds no insight into side effects or authorization.

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 extremely concise ('Detalhar categoria' – two words), which is front-loaded and efficient. However, it borders on under-specification, lacking any additional structure or explanatory content. For a simple get-by-id tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description is minimal but lacks important context. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage scenarios, or why this tool exists alongside similar ones. The output schema might provide return structure, but the description itself is incomplete for confident agent selection.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. The sole parameter 'id' is an integer with no schema description, and the description does not explain what it refers to. The agent is left to infer that 'id' is the category identifier, but no value is added beyond the schema field name.

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 'Detalhar categoria' (Portuguese for 'Detail category') clearly indicates a retrieve-by-ID operation for a single category. It distinguishes from the sibling 'getCategories' (plural) because of the singular focus and required 'id' parameter. A specific verb and resource are present, though it could more explicitly state 'by ID'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getCategories' or 'getCategory' (if multiple). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints for when this endpoint is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Detalhar cartão de crédito' only implies a read operation but does not disclose return behavior, error handling, or permissions. It offers no more information than the tool name itself, failing to add behavioral context.

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 very brief ('Detalhar cartão de crédito') and could be considered concise, but it is under-specified. It is not a complete sentence and lacks detail, making it more of a label than a useful description. It does not fully convey the tool's function in a structured way.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is still inadequate. It does not state what the tool returns or the context in which it should be used. The phrase 'Detalhar cartão de crédito' is too vague to provide complete context, even for a simple get-by-ID 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?

The schema has one parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage), and the description does not mention this parameter at all. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail. While the parameter name 'id' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaningful explanation about its role or constraints.

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 'Detalhar cartão de crédito' translates to 'Detail credit card', which provides a verb and resource but is vague. It does not explicitly state that this tool retrieves a single credit card by ID, nor does it distinguish from the sibling tool getCreditCards (plural). The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getCreditCards or updateCreditCard. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Detail an invoice' with no mention of side effects, permissions, return behavior, or read-only nature. This is completely absent for a likely read operation.

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 extremely short ('Detalhar uma fatura'), but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It lacks any structural elements such as context, parameter explanation, or usage notes, providing no value beyond the tool name.

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?

Despite having an output schema and two required parameters, the description gives no context on how the tool fits into the credit card invoice workflow, what the inputs mean, or what the response contains. A single vague phrase is completely inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema lists two required integer parameters (id and invoice_id) with no descriptions, and the description provides zero explanation of their meaning or relationship. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails entirely to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 'Detalhar uma fatura' means 'Detail an invoice' in Portuguese. It identifies a verb and resource but is extremely vague, failing to specify it concerns a credit card invoice or to distinguish it from sibling tools like getCreditCardInvoices (list) and getCreditCardInvoicePayment (payment details). It essentially restates the tool name without added specificity.

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. Closely related sibling tools (getCreditCardInvoices, getCreditCardInvoicePayment) require explicit differentiation, but the description provides none, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a payment entry, without elaborating on error handling, nullability, or other behavioral traits. No additional context beyond the name is given.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded, earning its place despite its brevity.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema, the description lacks usage guidelines and parameter explanations. For a two-parameter operation, the description is too sparse to support confident invocation or understanding of the tool's role within the API.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for the required parameters 'id' and 'invoice_id', and the description does not clarify their roles. It only vaguely mentions an invoice relation, leaving the parameter semantics ambiguous. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retorna' (returns) and identifies the resource as 'lançamento de pagamento referente a uma fatura' (payment entry related to an invoice). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getCreditCardInvoice, which returns an invoice, and getTransactions. No ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without sufficient information for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important default behavior (date omission filters to open/future invoices) but does not mention other traits such as id semantics, response format, or error conditions. This adds some value but remains limited.

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, focused sentence that conveys a specific behavioral rule without wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed, making it appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema and low complexity, the description omits the core statement of what the tool does—it only provides a conditional edge-case note. It does not explain that 'id' refers to a credit card, nor does it explicitly say it lists invoices. An agent would have to rely on the tool name and sibling context to understand basic usage, which is insufficient for a standalone description.

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 67%, with start_date and end_date documented. The description adds meaning by explaining the consequence of omitting both dates (returns only open/future invoices). However, the required 'id' parameter has no description in schema or description, leaving its role ambiguous beyond what the tool name implies.

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 name 'getCreditCardInvoices' and the Portuguese description 'retorna apenas faturas em aberto e/ou futuras' indicate the tool returns invoices. It clearly distinguishes from the singular sibling 'getCreditCardInvoice' by implying a list operation. However, the description focuses on a conditional case rather than stating the core purpose outright.

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 conditional usage: if start_date and end_date are omitted, only open/future invoices are returned. This guides when to omit dates. It does not explicitly reference alternatives like the singular invoice tool, but the conditional behavior serves as practical usage context.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The description merely restates that the tool lists credit cards, providing no additional behavioral context such as whether it returns all cards, whether pagination is involved, or any authentication/authorization requirements. It is essentially tautological with the tool name.

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 short phrase 'Listar cartões de crédito' with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise, fitting the purpose well.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, this description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and provides no hints on when to choose this over other getter tools, making it slightly incomplete for an agent deciding between options.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter-level 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 'Listar cartões de crédito' clearly states the action (list) and resource (credit cards) with a specific verb and plural resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the singular sibling getCreditCard, but the plural form implies retrieving all credit cards rather than one.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getCreditCard, getCreditCardInvoices, or getCreditCardsInvoicePayment. The description does not mention contexts, exclusions, or recommend alternative tools for specific needs.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, data scoping (e.g., user-specific), or error handling. The month-specific scoping adds some context but is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It earns its place by clearly and efficiently stating the tool's purpose.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits crucial context about what budgets are returned, whether they are user-specific, and when to use this tool versus yearly/all budgets. With no annotations and minimal parameter info, the description is insufficient for a tool with two required parameters.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only hints at the month parameter via 'mês específico' without mentioning the year parameter or explaining how the parameters should be used. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Listar' (list) and resource 'metas' (budgets) with a clear scope 'de um mês específico' (of a specific month), which distinguishes it from siblings like getBudgets (all budgets) and getYearBudgets (yearly budgets). It leaves no doubt about the tool's function.

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 implies usage for retrieving monthly budgets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over getBudgets or getYearBudgets, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The context is inferred but not spelled out.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'detail transaction' and does not mention side effects (though unlikely), permissions, error behavior, or that it is a read-only operation. The lack of such disclosure is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using a single verb phrase to convey the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without significant bloat. The structure is efficient.

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 simple get-by-id tool, the description is adequate in combination with the schema and sibling names, which indicate it's the singular counterpart to getTransactions. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter clarification, making it minimally complete rather than fully self-sufficient.

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?

The input schema provides only an 'id' integer parameter with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description does not add any explanation of what the 'id' refers to (implicitly the transaction ID) or its format/constraints. Since schema coverage is zero and no parameter guidance is given, the description fails to compensate.

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 'Detalhar movimentação' clearly indicates the tool retrieves details of a single transaction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'getTransactions' beyond the implied singular/plural distinction, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this over the list variant.

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 usage is implied: the tool is used to detail a specific transaction, confirmed by the required 'id' parameter. No explicit guidance is given about when to use it instead of alternatives like getTransactions, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This meets the 'implied usage' level.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a concrete behavioral trait—the 300-transaction limit—and recommends a mitigation strategy, adding genuine transparency beyond what the name implies. It does not discuss read-only status or response format, but the disclosed limit is a key behavioral constraint.

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 brief and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a warning and recommendation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple list operation, optional filters, and presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does and the critical limit. It could mention default behavior or scope (e.g., whether transfers are included), but the combination of schema, output schema, and description is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by explaining that start_date and end_date should be used to break queries into smaller periods due to the limit, which goes beyond the schema's simple date format descriptions.

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 as movimentações' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it lists transactions. The name distinguishes it from sibling getTransaction, but the description itself does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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?

It provides guidance on using start_date and end_date to avoid the 300-transaction limit, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like getTransaction or getTransfers. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining whether it is read-only, what data is returned, potential errors, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While it is concise, the single phrase does not earn its place because it lacks essential details to distinguish or use the tool effectively.

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?

Even though the tool is simple with one parameter, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify the input semantics, expected output, or any conditions for use. With 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves too much to inference.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'id' with zero description coverage. The description 'Detalhar transferência' does not explain what the 'id' represents or how to use it. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 'Detalhar transferência' clearly indicates a get/details operation for a transfer resource. It uses a specific verb and resource, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getTransfers (listing) or other transfer actions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getTransfers for listing transfers. There is no mention of prerequisites or context in which this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List transfers', implying a read operation, but fails to mention authentication needs, response format, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 short phrase, 'Listar transferências', which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is arguably under-specified, providing just the minimal verb+resource without any additional structure or elaboration that would help the agent understand usage nuances.

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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any context about what constitutes a transfer, how it differs from a transaction, or what the response contains. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves gaps in usage context.

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?

The input schema is empty (zero parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but there are no parameters to document, and the schema fully covers the parameter surface.

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 uses a clear verb 'Listar' (to list) and specifies the resource 'transferências' (transfers), clearly indicating a collection-oriented operation. It distinguishes from the sibling 'getTransfer' (singular) by implying a list of all transfers, though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'getTransactions'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getTransfer' or 'getTransactions'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Detail user', which implies a read operation. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, error handling, or any side effects. The two-word phrase offers minimal transparency.

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 extremely short and under-specified, consisting of only 'Detalhar usuário'. While concise, it is not appropriately structured; it is a phrase rather than a complete sentence and loses informational value. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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 getter with one parameter and an output schema, so it doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, the description provides no usage context, behavioral notes, or error handling. It is minimally viable but inadequate for an agent to make informed invocation decisions.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not mention the parameter at all, its meaning, or its format. The agent must rely solely on the schema field name 'id' and integer type, with no added semantic information.

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 'Detalhar usuário' (Detail user) clearly identifies the tool as retrieving user details, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the 'user' entity, though it does not explicitly differentiate its behavior from other getters. The purpose is clear but lacks specifics on what details are returned.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or relationships with sibling tools like getAccount or getTransaction. Usage context is entirely absent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing action and does not describe what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or any side effects or limitations. For a read operation, the behavior is simple, but the description is still too sparse to be transparent.

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 concise phrase 'Listar metas do ano' with no unnecessary words or fluff. It effectively communicates the core purpose in a compact form, though its brevity borders on under-specification. It earns its place but leaves much to be desired in terms of detail.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. The lack of usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and explicit parameter semantics makes it insufficient, especially given the presence of similar sibling tools. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves critical usage questions unanswered.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'year' with 0% description coverage in the input schema. The description's phrase 'do ano' (of the year) does provide some semantic context that the parameter refers to the year for which budgets are listed. However, it does not fully compensate for the lack of explicit parameter documentation, such as format, range, or the fact that it is required. The schema provides type and example, but the description adds only minimal meaning.

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 'Listar metas do ano' clearly states the action (listar = list) and the resource (metas do ano = year budgets/goals). It is not a tautology and gives a basic idea of the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like getBudgets or getMonthBudgets, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios. Given that there are closely related sibling tools (getBudgets, getMonthBudgets), the absence of usage guidance is a clear gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'update bank account' without revealing whether this is a partial or full update, what side effects occur, whether changes are reversible, or any permission requirements.

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 concise phrase with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the key action and resource effectively.

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?

Despite having an output schema and five parameters, the description provides no behavioral context, usage rules, or parameter semantics. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke it.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter information at all. It does not explain the meaning of id, name, type, default, or description, nor does it compensate for the schema's lack of textual descriptions.

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 'Atualizar conta bancária' clearly states the action (update) and resource (bank account), distinguishing it from sibling tools like updateCreditCard which target a different resource type. This satisfies the specific verb+resource requirement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus createAccount, deleteAccount, or getAccount. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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

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

Sem anotações, a descrição deveria comunicar efeitos de mutação, mas nada é dito sobre se a atualização é parcial ou total, requisitos de permissão, possíveis efeitos colaterais ou comportamento em caso de campos ausentes. A frase é completamente vazia em termos de transparência comportamental.

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?

A descrição é curta, mas a extrema brevidade resulta em subespecificação, não em concisão eficaz. Uma única frase redundante não atende às necessidades informativas da ferramenta, tornando-a inútil.

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?

Para uma ferramenta de mutação com 4 parâmetros, sem anotações e com schema de saída presente, a descrição é totalmente inadequada. Não cobre contexto de uso, efeitos, parâmetros nem qualquer aspecto que permita ao agente selecionar e invocar corretamente a ferramenta.

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?

A descrição não menciona nenhum parâmetro. Como a cobertura do schema é de apenas 25% (apenas 'color' tem descrição), a descrição falha em compensar a falta de documentação para 'id', 'name' e 'parent_id', não agregando significado além do que já está no schema.

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?

A descrição 'Atualizar categoria' é uma tradução literal do nome da ferramenta 'updateCategory', constituindo uma tautologia que não adiciona informação além do nome. Não há diferenciação explícita de outras ferramentas de atualização (ex.: updateAccount, updateTransaction) além do recurso, já claro pelo nome.

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?

A descrição não oferece nenhuma orientação sobre quando utilizar esta ferramenta em vez de alternativas como createCategory, getCategory ou deleteCategory. Não há contexto de uso, pré-requisitos ou exclusões.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, or return behavior. It says nothing about what updating a credit card involves, whether it is destructive, or what prerequisites exist.

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 phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information, so the brevity is not an asset.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, two parameters, and an output schema, the description is radically incomplete. It fails to explain the operation's scope, side effects, or parameter semantics, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (id, update_invoices_since). It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 'Atualizar cartão de crédito' is just a Portuguese translation of the tool name 'updateCreditCard'. It adds no specifics about what updating entails, making it a tautology rather than a clear statement of purpose.

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, what scenarios call for it, or how it relates to sibling tools like createCreditCard or deleteCreditCard. The description provides no context for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states that the tool updates a transaction, revealing nothing about side effects, permission requirements, or impacts on recurring occurrences. For a mutation tool, this is a critical omission.

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 extremely brief, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It consists of a single phrase with no structure or elaboration, missing the opportunity to provide useful, organized information for the agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, a detailed input schema with recurrence and installments attributes), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the effects of updating a transaction (e.g., whether recurring instances are affected), and with no annotations, the agent is left without essential context for safe and correct usage.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, despite the schema having 3 parameters (id, update_all, update_future) with 67% of them described in the schema. It adds no semantic value beyond what is already in the schema, failing to clarify the meaning of id or how update_all and update_future affect behavior.

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 'Atualizar movimentação' is essentially a Portuguese translation of the tool name, restating it without any additional specificity. It does not describe what a transaction update entails or how it differs from other update tools like updateAccount or updateTransfer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative update tools. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether updates are partial or full, side effects, authorization requirements, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is a complete absence of behavioral information.

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 short phrase, which is concise in word count, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no structure, front-loading of key details, or additional helpful content. It is minimal to the point of being unhelpful.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain update semantics, return values, error conditions, or any usage context. The tool likely has an output schema, but the description doesn't mention what the outcome of an update would be.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate at all. It does not mention 'id', 'tags', 'notes', or 'description', leaving all four parameters unexplained. The description adds zero parameter context beyond the schema field names.

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 'Atualizar transferência' is just the Portuguese translation of the tool name 'updateTransfer'. It gives the verb and resource but no scope, specifics, or differentiation from sibling update tools like updateTransaction or updateAccount. It is essentially a tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The sibling list includes many update operations, but no contrast is drawn.

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