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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that the tool supports bulk execution with customer_ids and address_ids, and lists data fields for list action. However, it does not disclose response format, authentication needs, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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, listing multiple actions in a bullet-like format, then adding a flattened action note and bulk support. It could be streamlined to a single sentence about getting an address with optional batch. The structure is cluttered and lacks prioritized information.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify required parameters (e.g., customer_id and address_id for get_address), explain the 'data' or 'account' fields, or describe the return structure for get_address. The list fields mentioned are not applicable to this tool's main action.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mentioning customer_id, address_id, page, size, customer_ids, address_ids. However, it leaves 'data' and 'account' parameters unexplained. The requirements are implied but not explicitly linked to parameter combinations.

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 (list, get, list_addresses, get_address) but states it is flattened to get_address. This creates ambiguity about the tool's primary purpose, as it mixes different operations. The name suggests a single get_address operation, but the description is not sharply focused.

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 sibling tools like pagarme_customers_get or pagarme_customers_list_addresses. The bulk support mention is not framed as a usage scenario, and there is no indication of when to use batch versus single calls.

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