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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint as safe. The description adds that this tool handles multiple actions (e.g., list_transactions, balance) but is flattened to list_plans, and that payload differences exist across versions. No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with purpose and bullet-style for actions. Could be trimmed (e.g., 'Ações:' list) but remains clear and scannable.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (legacy, multiple actions), the description covers core behavior, parameter usage for two key params, and context. Missing details on 'account' and 'transaction_id' prevent a 5.

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; description explains 'data' holds JSON filters (count, page, status) and 'transaction_ids' enables bulk execution. However, 'account' and 'transaction_id' are not described, so only partial compensation.

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 clearly states the tool lists plans from the Pagar.me legacy API V1-V4, using verb 'list' and resource 'plans'. It distinguishes itself from the V5 counterpart (pagarme_plans_list) by specifying 'LEGADA' and the ak_ key condition.

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 provides context: use when connected with an ak_ key (legacy account). It implies the scope (V1-V4) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives like pagarme_plans_list, though siblings make it clear.

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