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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lightened. It adds useful context about batched execution, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any rate/access limits.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds bulk support as a second item. No redundant content is present.

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 three parameters including an unexplained 'query' object and no output schema. The description covers only the basic ID lookup path, leaving the semantics of the 'query' parameter and expected return behavior unstated, which is incomplete for a full understanding.

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 meaning for 'id' and 'ids' ('by ID', 'batch execution'), but the schema has 0% description coverage and the 'query' object parameter is completely undocumented. The description does not adequately compensate for the low schema coverage across all three 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Detalha uma transação por ID' (details a transaction by ID). It also distinguishes this from sibling list operations by focusing on retrieval by specific ID, and explicitly mentions bulk support via 'ids'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a transaction ID and need its details, especially with batch support. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose wording makes the context obvious relative to sibling tools.

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