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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it mentions 'lote' (batch) but does not explain result format, limits, or that charge_ids is required despite being optional in schema. 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 decently sized but includes extraneous information about other actions (list, summary, get) that are not relevant to this specific tool. The key detail is at the end and could be presented more directly.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It leaves many parameters unexplained and does not address return format or usage nuances, relying on the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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%, placing the burden on the description. Only charge_ids is explained ('vários por charge_ids' – multiple by IDs). Other parameters (data, page, size, account, charge_id) lack any description, causing ambiguity as they may belong to other actions listed but not to get_many.

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 identifies the tool as for retrieving multiple charges by charge_ids (bulk), which distinguishes it from siblings like list (filtered) and get (single). However, the inclusion of other actions (list, summary, get) creates noise and reduces clarity slightly.

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 usage when multiple charge IDs are available ('vários por charge_ids'). It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives (e.g., list for filtered queries). Usage is implied but not explicit.

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