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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds context about the flattened action and bulk support, which are behavioral traits beyond annotations. 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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and covers key points: what it is, actions, flattened action, and bulk support. No wasted words, though structure could be slightly improved.

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 tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers main use cases but does not explain return data or bulk execution details. The presence of sibling list tool reduces completeness slightly.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains that customer_id is required for actions, card_id is for get, and customer_ids/card_ids are for bulk execution. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the 'account' parameter is not described.

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 it handles saved cards of a client in Pagar.me V5, and defines two actions (list and get) with a flattened action of get. It distinguishes between listing all cards and getting a specific card by ID. However, the dual purpose might cause confusion with the sibling pagarme_cards_list tool, but the description attempts to clarify.

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 mentions that actions require customer_id and lists list/get sub-actions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs the sibling pagarme_cards_list tool. Bulk support is mentioned, but no guidance on when to use bulk vs single card retrieval.

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