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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get details' and mentions response content (associated payments), but does not cover authentication needs (apiKey), error behavior, pagination, or whether the operation has side effects. This is minimal disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action and key detail (associated payments). No wasted words; it is efficient and appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose but leaves out important context like org scoping (orgSlug), authentication (apiKey), and any details about the response structure beyond payments. It is sufficient for a simple retrieval but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (apiKey, cobroId, orgSlug). 'Specific charge' indirectly maps to cobroId, but orgSlug and apiKey are not described. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific charge (cobro)'), and adds a distinctive scope ('including all associated payments') that differentiates it from sibling tools like finance_list_cobros (listing all cobros) and finance_create_cobro (creating a cobro).

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 when to use the tool (when you need details of a specific charge) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It does not reference sibling tools like finance_list_cobros or finance_register_payment, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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