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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool supports batched execution via recipient_ids, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 cluttered with a long bullet list of actions irrelevant to withdrawals, and mixes Portuguese and English. It could be condensed to focus on withdrawals and bulk support.

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 many siblings, the description lacks essential details: no explanation of output format, no guidance on pagination for list (if applicable), and no clarity on the 'data' and 'account' parameters. Incomplete for effective use.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions page, size, recipient_id, and recipient_ids (via bulk), leaving data and account undefined. Insufficient compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as related to recipient withdrawals in Pagar.me V5, but includes a list of unrelated actions (list, get, balance, etc.) before specifying 'Flattened action: withdrawals'. This creates ambiguity about the tool's exact scope, making it less clear than a dedicated withdrawal tool should be.

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 sibling tools like pagarme_recipients_list or pagarme_recipients_balance. The description mentions bulk support but doesn't clarify usage context or alternatives.

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