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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds behavioral context: it supports bulk execution via payable_ids and lists expected return fields (status, payment_date, type) despite no output schema. No contradictions 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 relatively concise but includes some redundancy (listing actions then flattening) and mixes Portuguese and English. It front-loads the resource name effectively, but could be structured more clearly.

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?

Provides an overview of actions and bulk support, mentions pagination (page, size) and some return fields. However, lacks details on the 'account' parameter, sorting, filtering, and does not clarify the relationship with the sibling get tool. Adequate but not fully complete for a 6-parameter 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It partially explains page, size, payable_id, and payable_ids, but the 'data' parameter is confusingly described as output fields rather than an input string. The 'account' parameter is not mentioned at all. This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter usage.

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 is for listing payables (recebíveis) in Pagar.me V5, with explicit sub-actions for list and get. However, the presence of a sibling tool 'pagarme_payables_get' creates ambiguity about when to use this tool vs that one, and the description does not differentiate them.

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 alternatives like pagarme_payables_get or legacy list tools. The mention of 'Bulk support: accepts payable_ids for batched execution' implies a use case for multiple IDs, but does not cover when to use list vs get or exclude other scenarios.

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