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

Annotations set destructiveHint=false, yet the description includes a 'delete_address' action, which is destructive. This is a clear contradiction. Additionally, the description fails to disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or authorization beyond mentioning 'só sk_'. The annotation contradiction warrants the lowest score.

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 moderately concise with a bullet list but includes redundant phrasing like 'Flattened action: create_address' and 'Bulk support'. While not overly verbose, some sentences could be streamlined.

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's complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to select an action via parameters, lacks return value details, omits error handling, and only vaguely mentions bulk support. An agent would struggle to use this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only vaguely references 'data' and required IDs in action bullets. It does not map parameters to specific actions (e.g., when to use address_id vs address_ids) or explain the structure of 'data'. This adds little meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 attempts to cover multiple actions (create/update/delete customers and addresses) but the tool's name focuses on 'create_address', and sibling tools exist for individual actions. The purpose is muddled: it's unclear whether this tool is for all actions or specifically for create_address.

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 lists actions but provides no guidance on when to use this combined tool versus the dedicated siblings (e.g., pagarme_customers_write_create, pagarme_customers_write_update). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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