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

The description states 'Cria' (creates), but the destructiveHint annotation indicates the tool is destructive, which contradicts the description's clear creation semantics. The description's additional behavior about generating boleto/Pix is overshadowed by this contradiction, earning a score of 1.

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?

Two short sentences that immediately state what the tool does and its automatic payment generation. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and a misleading annotation, the description fails to disclose return values, side effects, or clarify the destructive contradiction. It is too sparse for a 6-parameter financial tool.

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 100%, so all six parameters have descriptions. The description adds a small note that boleto/Pix can be generated automatically, which relates to the formaPagamento enum, but does not add further semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Cria' and names the resource 'nova cobrança (conta a receber)', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like listar_cobrancas or criar_cobranca_pix by mentioning both boleto and Pix generation.

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 a general charge creation scenario with automatic boleto or Pix generation, but does not explicitly contrast with related tools like criar_cobranca_pix or agendar_cobranca. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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