PagSeguro

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It explains the two modes of operation (permanent via config, session via token) and the outcome of calling with or without a token. 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 concise but dense, covering multiple scenarios in one paragraph. It could benefit from structuring (e.g., bullets), but remains effective and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

For an authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains both authentication methods, the link generation, and the config option, covering all necessary agent actions.

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 coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter: paste and call with it, or call without to get a link. It also mentions the config option, adding completeness.

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's purpose: authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in, copy token) and the resource (this server), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' by detailing two distinct authentication methods.

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 provides clear instructions on when to use each method: for permanent access via config header, and for session-only login by pasting a token. It also explains calling with no args to get a link. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the return values (authenticated, pending, connect_url) and explains behavior in different states. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention that no modifications occur.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence provides essential information without fluff.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main scenarios (connected vs missing credentials) adequately. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact structure of the response, but it covers the key use cases.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly describes the tool's behavior without referencing parameters.

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 returns connection status and URLs, and distinguishes between when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. This provides specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when to prefer it over 'authenticate' or 'toolkit_info' or 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.

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

Annotations only provide basic hints (e.g., not read-only, open world). The description adds extensive behavioral context: invoke works without installation, may return connect or checkout links, writes require workspace owner/admin, and actions like subscribe/cancel have billing implications. This fully compensates for the lack of annotation detail and adds significant 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?

The description is long but well-structured, starting with the primary purpose and then detailing the core flow. Every sentence adds value (e.g., clarifying differences between invoke and install). While dense, it could be slightly more concise by grouping related actions more tightly, but it remains efficient for the complexity involved.

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's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably comprehensive. It covers the main workflow, auth prerequisites, payment handling, one-off vs permanent usage, and administrative permissions. All key scenarios (credential needed, empty wallet, workspace owner requirement) are addressed, leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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 does so for key parameters: action enum values are explained (search, describe, etc.), mcp_id and tool_id are contextualized in the flow, and arguments, immediate, tier_slug are mentioned. However, some secondary parameters like cancel_reason, cancel_comment, report_context lack explicit explanation, relying on the context of the tool purpose.

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 that this is the official marketplace for MCPs and the primary way to discover and run them. It specifies the resource (marketplace) and provides a detailed core flow with specific actions (search, describe, invoke), distinguishing itself from external registries. The verb 'use' is implied but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool FIRST before any external registry. It outlines when to use each action (e.g., 'invoke for one-off use', 'install for permanent addition') and what to do in specific scenarios (credential needed, payment required). It also clarifies when not to use install (prefer invoke for occasional use), providing clear alternatives.

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

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description describes cancellation (destructive), creating a contradiction. No additional behavioral traits (auth, rate limits, side effects) are disclosed beyond the action itself.

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 concise but front-loads general charge actions before specifying the flattening to cancel. It wastes no sentences, though the initial list could confuse if not read carefully.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description lacks details on return format, errors, or prerequisites. For a mutation tool with no schema descriptions, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions charge_id and charge_ids but omits 'account' and includes 'amount_cents' which is only relevant for refund, potentially misleading. No parameter formatting or constraints are described.

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 cancels charges ('cancela uma cobrança'), distinguishes from get and refund actions, and supports bulk via charge_ids. Sibling tools for get and refund further clarify its unique purpose.

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 specifies that cancel applies to charges not yet captured ('ainda não capturada'), explicitly differentiating from refund (estorno) and indicating bulk support. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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

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

The description states the tool performs a read operation ('get' returns details), but annotations set readOnlyHint to false, indicating possible mutations. This contradiction undermines trust. No side effects or behavioral traits beyond the immediate action are disclosed.

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 details about cancel and refund actions that belong to other tools. The 'Flattened action: get' statement is helpful but the bulk of the text is extraneous.

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?

With no output schema and 0% property descriptions, the description must provide comprehensive guidance. It fails to explain key parameters (account, amount_cents) and the response format, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage (0%). The description explains charge_id for get and mentions charge_ids for bulk, but fails to account for account and amount_cents parameters. The bulk support description conflicts with the 'single charge' claim, causing confusion.

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 that the tool retrieves details of a single charge via 'get' action with a required charge_id. However, it includes unrelated actions (cancel, refund) which could confuse an agent, slightly reducing clarity.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like pagseguro_charges_cancel or pagseguro_charges_refund. The description only lists actions without context for selection.

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

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

The description lists actions that may not all be available (get, cancel) and does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions. Annotations provide minimal safety info but description adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 moderately concise but includes extraneous information about get and cancel actions that are not core to the refund tool. The bullet list helps structure but could be more focused.

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?

The description covers refund and bulk support but lacks details on return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., charge status), and does not mention the account parameter. Insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema.

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?

The description explains charge_id as required, amount_cents as optional for partial refund, and charge_ids for bulk. However, the account parameter is not explained, and with 0% schema coverage, more detail is needed.

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, cancel, refund) but the tool name and 'Flattened action: refund' indicate it is for refund. This ambiguity dilutes clarity; the purpose is not singularly clear.

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 versus sibling tools like pagseguro_charges_cancel or pagseguro_charges_get. The description does not compare or contrast with alternatives.

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

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

The description mentions 'create' and 'deactivate' actions, implying modification and potential state changes, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, or what happens during bulk execution (checkout_ids). Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are minimally consistent, but the description adds little valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extraneous information (listing multiple actions, bulk support) that is not directly relevant to the tool's primary function. The '[Flattened action: create]' note adds confusion rather than clarity. A concise, focused description would be more helpful.

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?

The description lacks essential details: no output schema, no explanation of return values or success/failure indicators, no indication of required parameters for the create action, and no error handling information. For a tool with zero parameter coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It states 'cria um checkout (passe o objeto 'checkout')' but does not describe the structure of the 'checkout' object or clarify that 'checkout_id' and 'checkout_ids' are irrelevant for the create action. This omission leaves the agent uncertain about which parameters to use.

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 three actions (create, get, deactivate) but the tool is named for 'create' and includes a note '[Flattened action: create]', creating confusion about which actions this tool actually performs. It does not clearly state that the tool is solely for creating checkouts, and the inclusion of other actions makes the purpose vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (pagseguro_checkouts_get, pagseguro_checkouts_deactivate). The description even suggests this tool includes get and deactivate actions, contradicting the existence of separate sibling tools for those purposes.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds the 'deactivate' action but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like permissions required, reversibility, side effects, or error conditions. Bulk mention is a parameter detail. No contradiction 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 overly verbose and includes irrelevant general info about checkouts and other actions (create, get). It repeats the same info in different ways (Portuguese and English). The structure is inefficient; it should focus solely on the deactivate action. Less than ideal for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of output schema and poor parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens after deactivation (e.g., whether checkouts become unusable), required permissions, or return values. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and description only partially explains two parameters: checkout_id and checkout_ids. It mentions these accept IDs for deactivation and bulk support, but does not clarify account or checkout object. The checkout object is irrelevant for deactivation but still present in schema. Poor coverage of the 4 parameters.

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 states 'deactivate: inativa um checkout (checkout_id)' and mentions bulk support, so the core purpose is clear. However, the description begins with generic info about checkouts and lists all actions (create, get, deactivate), which dilutes focus and could confuse an agent. The '[Flattened action: deactivate]' line helps, but the purpose is not cleanly presented.

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 its siblings (e.g., pagseguro_checkouts_create, pagseguro_checkouts_get). The description does not indicate prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only hint is that it accepts checkout_id or checkout_ids for deactivation, but this is implicit.

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

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

The description claims a "get" action but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, creating a contradiction. Beyond this, the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations already present, the description adds no extra behavioral context.

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 general overview of checkouts and a list of three actions, even though this tool is specifically for 'get'. The unnecessary text and lack of focus on the actual tool's purpose make it inefficient.

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 absence of an output schema and low schema coverage, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., fields of a checkout) and how to correctly supply parameters. It fails to provide this information, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters but only mentions checkout_id and checkout_ids briefly. It does not clarify the 'account' parameter or the 'checkout' object (which may be irrelevant for this get action). The bulk support hint is minimal.

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 indicates this tool retrieves details of a checkout ("detalhe de UM checkout") and mentions bulk support with checkout_ids, but it is muddled by including extraneous actions (create, deactivate) that belong to other tools. This ambiguity about single vs. batch and the unnecessary actions reduce clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like pagseguro_checkouts_create or pagseguro_orders_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios that favor this tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the returned content (id and label) and the scope (linked to this install), but does not elaborate on any other behavioral traits.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes key details (token type, scope, returned fields). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return values. However, it fails to explain the optional parameter, and with no output schema, additional details about the response format would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the optional 'account' parameter at all. The tool's purpose is clear, but the parameter's role (e.g., filtering specific accounts) remains undefined, leaving a significant gap for the agent.

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 verb (Lista), the resource (tokens PagSeguro/merchant accounts), and the scope (vinculados a este install). It also mentions the returned fields (id e label). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pagseguro_charges_get or pagseguro_orders_create.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pagseguro_public_keys or authenticate. It simply states what it does without context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with creation. The description introduces bulk support ('accepts order_ids, reference_ids for batched execution'), adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on side effects, required permissions, error behavior, and the return format.

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 short but structurally poor. It intermingles instructions for multiple actions (list, get, create) in a single tool description, leading to confusion. A clearer separation or focus on create alone would improve conciseness.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the nested 'order' object structure, the purpose of each parameter, or the behavior of bulk operations. The tool is complex and requires more detailed context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'order' object and bulk parameters (order_ids, reference_ids) but does not explain the 'account' parameter or specify the role of each parameter. The guidance for 'order' is to consult external documentation, which is insufficient.

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 mentions multiple actions (list, get, create) but this tool is specifically for creating orders. The inclusion of list and get actions confuses the purpose, despite the title and flattened action indicating create. It does state 'create: cria um pedido', but the extraneous details harm clarity.

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 provides vague guidance for create ('passe o objeto order conforme a doc PagSeguro') and includes usage notes for other actions (list, get) that are not relevant to this tool. It does not explicitly state when to use create versus the sibling tools pagseguro_orders_list or pagseguro_orders_get.

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

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

The description claims 'get' (read) but annotations set readOnlyHint=false, indicating possible mutation. This is a contradiction. Additionally, no details on side effects, permissions, or behavior for bulk requests.

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 rambling, mixing unrelated actions and including irrelevant details like 'list' and 'create'. The flattened action note adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 annotation hints, the description lacks essential details like return format, error handling, and prerequisites. It is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Adds meaning for order_id (single get) and order_ids/reference_ids (bulk), but fails to explain account, reference_id, or the 'order' object. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates only partially.

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 mixes actions list, get, and create, then says 'Flattened action: get'. It is unclear whether the tool is solely a get operation or supports multiple actions. The name 'pagseguro_orders_get' suggests get, but the description muddles the purpose.

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 versus siblings like pagseguro_orders_list or pagseguro_orders_create. The description even mentions list and create actions, which are separate tools, potentially misleading the agent.

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

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

The description fails to clarify behavioral traits beyond listing. Since readOnlyHint is false, the tool might mutate, but the description doesn't confirm that listing is safe. It includes a create action which implies mutation, but it's unclear if that action is actually available in this tool. The bulk support mention lacks details on limits or side effects.

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 poorly structured: actions are mixed, the 'Flattened action' note is confusing, and it includes irrelevant details (e.g., create action for a list tool). It is not concise and could be reduced to a clear statement about listing orders with parameter guidance.

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 0% schema coverage, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return format, pagination, filtering, or which parameters are required for listing. Sibling tools exist for get and create, but the description fails to clarify this tool's role, making it nearly unusable for an AI agent.

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?

The description hints at usage for some parameters (order_id for get, reference_id for list), but leaves 'order' and 'account' unexplained. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only partially explains a few parameters. The bulk support mention for order_ids/reference_ids adds some context, but overall it's insufficient.

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 tool name suggests listing orders, but the description includes actions for get and create, making the purpose ambiguous. The 'Flattened action: list' note adds confusion rather than clarity. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like pagseguro_orders_get and pagseguro_orders_create.

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 vs alternatives. It mentions that 'list' may require reference_id, but does not explain prerequisites, filtering options, or when to prefer this over pagseguro_orders_get for single orders. The inclusion of create/get actions further muddles usage.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description confirms the return value (public key) but does not add further behavioral context like error handling or auth requirements.

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 a single sentence that is concise but omits important details. It could be restructured to include parameter information without becoming verbose.

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's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description fails to cover the 'account' parameter, return format, or error scenarios, leaving significant gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, but description mentions 'type default card', partially covering the 'type' parameter. The 'account' parameter is completely undocumented, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 returns the merchant's public key for encrypting cards on the client side, distinguishing it from sibling tools like charges, orders, and checkouts.

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 versus alternatives or how to choose the 'type' or 'account' parameters. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and retryable. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it 'reports' something, which aligns with idempotence. It does not detail side effects (e.g., ticket creation) or authentication needs, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second provides a critical usage instruction. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple bug-reporting tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key usage hint. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation), but given the low complexity and safe annotations, the description is mostly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation' parameter (include recent messages) and implies 'message' is the bug/feedback text, but the 'context' parameter is left unexplained. This partial coverage meets the baseline but is not fully compensating.

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's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that covers the main use cases. The tool is distinct from its sibling tools (e.g., authentication, payments), so no confusion arises.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool, including an explicit instruction to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, which would push it to a 5. Given the siblings are unrelated, this is a minor gap.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal extra behavioral context; it confirms the tool shows versions but does not expand on return format or other details.

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?

A single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple parameterless tool with strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient; it tells the agent exactly what to expect.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter information; baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb 'Show' and the specific resource 'MCP platform and adapter versions', distinguishing it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or payment 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?

While no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance is given, the simple nature and lack of parameters make its usage obvious; it is clearly for retrieving version information.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds value by specifying the output content (installed MCPs, status, catalog counts), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior 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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and then provides specific details. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes what the tool returns: installed MCPs, their connection status, and catalog tool counts. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output without needing further clarification.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the parameter definition.

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 specifies the exact resource ('current toolkit state') and what it contains ('installed MCPs, their connection status, and how many catalog tools each exposes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, or pagseguro tools, which serve different purposes.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when needing information about installed MCPs and their status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would be beneficial but is not critical given the tool's unique role among siblings.

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