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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, and the description confirms that. It adds bulk support detail but lacks further behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects. Minimal value beyond 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?

Description is somewhat lengthy and mixes Portuguese and English. The list of actions is redundant with the tool's actual purpose and could be trimmed. Structure is organized but could be more concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description should clearly convey what the tool does. The ambiguity about which action is performed undermines completeness. Important context like whether it modifies state or just triggers a retry is unclear.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'data opcional' for some actions and bulk charge_ids, providing some context. However, the mapping of 'data' parameter to specific sub-fields (amount, due_at) is unclear given the schema defines data only as a string.

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 lists multiple actions (capture, retry, confirm, etc.) but then states 'Flattened action: retry.' This is contradictory and confusing. The tool name suggests retry, and sibling tools exist for the other actions, so the purpose is unclear.

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 vs alternatives like pagarme_charges_cancel or pagarme_charges_write_capture. The constraint 'só contas sk_' is noted but doesn't differentiate from siblings.

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