Visão Geral de Transações

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any potential side effects. The only extra detail is that values are in cents, which is useful but insufficient.

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 short (two sentences), which is concise, but lacks necessary details. It is well-structured with the verb first, but could benefit from expanding on the output without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it fails to explain what the output contains beyond vague 'totals and balances.' With many sibling tools, it should clarify how this tool fits into the broader workflow, which it does not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameter meaning. It only mentions 'para uma data' (for a date) but does not explain the format, allowed range, or how the date affects results. The default value in the schema is not highlighted.

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 it retrieves totals and account balances for a date, specifying the resource (Despezzas overview) and returning values in cents. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings, though it could be more precise about what 'totals' include.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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