getTransaction

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.