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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description lists actions that might be mutations (e.g., 'withdrawals' could be misread). More importantly, it lists many actions that are not part of this tool, suggesting a copy-paste error, undermining 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?

Description is verbose with a bullet list of actions, many of which are out of scope. Not concise; it wastes space listing actions that belong to other tools. Poor structure for a flattened action tool.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no schema documentation, the description is inadequate. It fails to clarify what the tool actually does vs siblings, and lacks necessary details for correct invocation.

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 mentions page, size, recipient_id, and recipient_ids, but provides no semantic details (e.g., what page does, format expectations). Does not add meaningful information beyond the schema.

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 lists many actions for recipients but is specifically for anticipations. It mentions 'anticipations' and 'anticipation_limits', but also includes unrelated actions like 'list', 'get', 'default', etc. The purpose is muddled, especially since sibling tools exist for those other actions.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like pagarme_recipients_write_create_anticipation or pagarme_recipients_anticipation_limits. It only notes that some actions require recipient_id, but doesn't differentiate alternatives.

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