rif_analytics_list_maiores_transacoes

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 states this is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't address critical aspects like pagination, sorting order (e.g., descending by transaction size), rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'maior transacao' (e.g., by amount, frequency). The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant or verbose language, making it highly concise and well-structured for its limited 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 2 parameters (one required), 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is too sparse—it lacks parameter details and behavioral context, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the output schema's assistance.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only mentions 'src_id' as the origin, adding minimal context. It doesn't explain 'top' (likely the number of top transactions to return) or provide examples, formats, or constraints for either parameter, leaving them largely undocumented.

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 verb ('Lista') and resource ('maiores transacoes') with a specific scope ('associadas a uma origem (src_id)'). It's specific about what it does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rif_analytics_list_maiores_transacoes_por_pessoa' which suggests a similar function but with a different grouping parameter.

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's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools (e.g., 'rif_analytics_list_maiores_transacoes_por_pessoa' or 'rif_analytics_get_resumo'), leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.

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