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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: the reservation is only confirmed after payment, the guest pays on the gateway page via payment_url, the confirmation number appears later in get_order_status, and pix carries a 5% discount. It is silent on idempotency, order expiry, and auth requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the payment-link flow, then organized per-parameter in short labeled blocks. Every sentence conveys actionable constraint (card data prohibition, discount, currency applicability) rather than restating the schema.

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 complex, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with 11 params, the description covers the end-to-end flow and the highest-risk parameters. The gaps are the identity/routing params (token, search_id, opcao_id, email_contato) and failure/expiry behavior, which an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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% across 11 params, so the description must compensate and largely does for the critical ones: hospedes (structure {firstName,lastName} per guest and count constraint), telefone (required, DDI/DDD format), metodo ('parcelado'/'pix' and BRL-only condition), locale ('pt'/'es'/'en' and downstream effects), and the order_id return. token, search_id, opcao_id, email_contato, nome_contato, pais and cidade remain 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?

States a specific verb+resource immediately: 'Cria o pedido e devolve o LINK DE PAGAMENTO.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming get_order_status as the follow-up for confirmation and contrasting with search inputs (hospedes must match the search totals). An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: never request or type card data in conversation, metodo only applies when the fare is BRL (pix vs parcelado semantics given), and USD fares go through Stripe instead. It also states the prerequisite that hospedes must correspond to adults+len(children_ages) from the search.

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