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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It does add context about the types of charges (débitos, tarifas, chargebacks) which informs the agent what to expect. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination limits, or how the date range filters are applied, leaving some behavioral gaps that the annotations don't cover.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key distinctions (open/closed). Every word serves a function, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration. This is exemplary conciseness—nothing extraneous, and the essential information is present in the first phrase.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not state what the return data looks like (e.g., list of charge objects, fields, totals), how the date range is applied, or the meaning of 'size'. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like rede_conta or rede_extrato. The agent would struggle to know exactly what to expect and how to call it correctly beyond basic filtering.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It indirectly references start_date/end_date via 'no período' and status via 'abertas (OPEN) ou liquidadas (CLOSED)', but it does not explicitly explain the parameters, their formats, or the 'size' parameter at all. The description partially compensates for two of four parameters but leaves significant ambiguity, especially for size and date syntax.

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 provides charges/adjustments to the Rede account (debits, fees, chargebacks), filtered by open or settled status. It names a specific resource and scope, and the mention of OPEN/CLOSED aligns with the status enum. However, it lacks an explicit verb (list/fetch), and the distinction from siblings like rede_conta or rede_extrato is implied rather than stated, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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 gives context about what data is included (period, status) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rede_conta, rede_extrato, or rede_vendas_listar. There are no exclusions or conditions for selecting this over other tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case. This is insufficient routing guidance.

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