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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) align with the 'Leitura' mention, but the description then adds 'Bulk support' and a list of endpoints without explaining behavior beyond reading. The mixed messaging reduces transparency.

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 and includes a bullet list of unrelated actions, making it unfocused. The structure is cluttered, and the 'Flattened action: balance' line is unclear. It is not 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?

Given the complexity (many sibling tools, no output schema, unannotated parameters), the description is insufficient. It fails to differentiate this tool from similar legacy tools and omits critical usage context.

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?

The input schema has four parameters (data, account, transaction_id, transaction_ids) with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter or how to use them, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.

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 tool name is 'pagarme_legacy_balance', suggesting a balance-specific function. However, the description lists numerous other actions (list_transactions, get_transaction, etc.) that belong to separate sibling tools, creating confusion about the tool's actual purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that cover the listed actions (e.g., pagarme_legacy_list_transactions). The description does not clarify the intended scope.

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