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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), which is consistent with creating a charge. The description adds the context that it 'gera cobrança, mexe em dinheiro' (generates charges, touches money). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like payment processing, refund implications, or rate limits. With only basic annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 verbose and includes a list of actions that belong to the broader tool family but not specifically to this tool. The key information about charge_value is buried after several lines of unrelated actions. The structure is not front-loaded; the '[Flattened action: charge_value]' note comes at the end, which is inefficient.

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 complexity (3 params, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify required parameters for this action, expected output, or how to differentiate from the large number of sibling tools (e.g., charge_offer, create). The description of the 'data' object is vague, and there is no explanation of the 'account' parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that for charge_value, 'data' should contain 'token' and 'valor' (value). This adds meaning beyond the empty schema definition. However, it does not explain the 'account' parameter or whether 'payment_link_ucode' is required for this action, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 states the tool is for mutations on Hotmart payment links that generate charges and deal with money. It explicitly lists 'charge_value: cobra por valor (data com token/valor)' which clarifies the specific action. However, the preceding list of multiple actions (create, add_offer, etc.) creates confusion about which action this tool actually performs, partly mitigated by the '[Flattened action: charge_value]' note.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'charge_offer' or 'create'. The description lists other actions but does not compare or contrast; an agent would need to infer that charge_value is for fixed-value charges and charge_offer for offer-based charges. This lack of differentiation increases selection risk.

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