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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the bulk execution behavior but does not elaborate on pagination, result format, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 actions (list, get, default, balance, etc.) that are not directly relevant to this tool. The core information about anticipation_limits is buried, making it less concise than it could be.

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 high number of sibling tools and the lack of output schema, the description should better distinguish this tool from similar ones (e.g., pagarme_recipients_anticipations) and provide more detail on what the limits response contains. The current description is incomplete.

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 6 parameters with 0% coverage. The description explains recipient_id and recipient_ids, but leaves data, page, size, and account undocumented. This adds some meaning but is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 indicates the tool is for anticipation limits of recipients, using the flattened action 'anticipation_limits' and mentioning it requires recipient_id. However, the description is cluttered with other unrelated actions, which may slightly dilute focus.

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 states that recipient_id is required and mentions bulk support with recipient_ids, providing context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pagarme_recipients_anticipations or pagarme_recipients_write_create_anticipation, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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