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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds important behavior: batch execution via transaction_ids, filtering via data JSON, and raw field differences between versions. No contradiction with 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?

The description is verbose and includes a list of multiple unrelated actions (e.g., list_customers, list_transactions) that are not specific to this tool. The flattened action helps, but the clutter reduces clarity.

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?

While the description covers legacy context, filtering, and batch support, it lacks details on output format (no output schema) and omits explanation of the 'account' parameter. This leaves some gaps for an agent using the tool.

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 description explains the 'data' parameter for filters (count, page, status) and 'transaction_id'/'transaction_ids' for single/batch access. However, it does not explain the 'account' parameter. With 0% schema coverage, this partial coverage merits a score of 3.

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 it is for listing transfers from the legacy Pagar.me API (V1-V4), with the flattened action explicitly indicating 'list_transfers'. This distinguishes it from the modern pagarme_transfers_list sibling.

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 specifies when to use this tool: 'Ativa quando a conexão usa uma chave ak_… (contas ainda não migradas pra V5).' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention the modern alternative pagarme_transfers_list.

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