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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with '[write, altera dados]' plus the PUT method. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility, but it is consistent with annotations and adds a small amount of 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 short, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, and contains no filler. The terse style sacrifices informative content, but that is better evaluated under completeness rather than 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?

For a state-changing billing operation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks request format, parameter meanings, and effect details, making correct invocation difficult.

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% for the three string parameters (body, query, account), and the description offers no explanation of any of them. An agent cannot determine what values to supply or how they map to the endpoint.

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 operation: 'Estornar uma cobrança' (reverse a charge), with a specific verb and resource, and includes the HTTP method and endpoint (PUT /cobranca/estornar). This distinguishes it from sibling charge operations such as liquidar, excluir, and desinvalidar.

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 related siblings like superlogica_cobranca_desinvalidar, superlogica_cobranca_excluir, or superlogica_cobranca_liquidar. The description only defines the action, leaving selection context entirely implicit.

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