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.