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

The description explicitly states the operation is 'irreversível' (irreversible) and that it returns the amount to the buyer, adding critical behavioral context beyond the annotations. This helps the agent understand the permanent effect and financial impact. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and to the point, with a bullet list for actions. The 'Flattened action' line is somewhat redundant but does not significantly detract. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 financial write operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, required permissions, and the state of the transaction (e.g., must be refundable). The agent has insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 mentions transaction_code as the identifier for the refund, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it fails to explain the account parameter, its purpose, or any constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more detail for all 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 performs 'refund' on Hotmart sales, using specific verb and resource. It identifies the required input (transaction_code) and the irreversible nature. While it distinguishes from siblings by name, it does not explicitly compare or contrast with other similar tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hotmart_subscriptions_write_cancel or other sales tools. No prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios provided. The agent must infer usage from the name and minimal description.

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