Preparar Criação de Transação

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description confirms no API call and validation role, adding marginal value. No contradictions, but little extra behavior disclosed.

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, which is concise but under-specified given the tool's complexity (15 parameters). It omits critical usage details, making it insufficient for effective tool selection.

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 complex input, the description is minimal. It fails to describe return values, validation behavior, or relationships to other tools. The agent lacks context to use this tool effectively.

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%, with 15 parameters and many enums. The description provides zero information about any parameter, leaving the agent to infer meaning only from names and types. This severely hinders correct parameter selection.

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 'Monta e valida uma transação sem chamar a API' clearly states the tool assembles and validates a transaction without API calls. The verb 'prepara' (prepare) and the distinction from 'create_transaction' is clear, especially given the sibling tool 'despezzas_create_transaction' exists for actual creation.

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 as a safe validation step before actual creation, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use, nor provide alternatives. The sibling tool names suggest it, but no direct guidance is given.

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