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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare safe read behavior. The description adds some context about available sub-actions but does not contradict annotations. However, it lacks details on authentication or rate limits.

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 lengthy and includes irrelevant actions, violating conciseness. The core list functionality is overwhelmed by unrelated sub-actions that should be in separate tool descriptions.

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 tool is for listing recipients, it lacks critical details like pagination behavior, default size, ordering, and response format. The mention of bulk support is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

Only 'page' and 'size' are mentioned in the context of list action. The remaining parameters (data, account, recipient_id, recipient_ids) are not explained beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 multiple actions (get, default, balance, transfers, etc.) in a tool named 'list', creating confusion. The actual purpose (listing recipients) is buried under extraneous actions that belong to sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. sibling tools like pagarme_recipients_get, pagarme_recipients_balance, etc. The description does not provide context for choosing alternative tools.

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