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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns a payment URL, the guest pays on Stripe, booking is only confirmed after payment, and it explains the guest count validation. It does not mention response format or error conditions, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 long but well-structured: purpose first, then safety warning, then flow, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the key warning is front-loaded. There is no 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?

For a payment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, safety, guest count, and monitoring via get_order_status. It indicates the payment_url output but lacks explicit error handling or response details. Overall it is quite complete for the given complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains `hospedes` in detail (one entry per guest, total must match adults+len(children_ages)) and `voucher_code` with an example. However, parameters like token, search_id, opcao_id, and email_contato are left unnamed, relying on their names for meaning.

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 'Cria o pedido e devolve o LINK DE PAGAMENTO (Stripe Checkout)', identifying a specific verb (cria) and resource (payment link). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_quote and get_order_status by focusing on payment link creation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: the booking only takes effect after payment confirmation and should be tracked with get_order_status. It also warns to never ask for card details in the conversation, which is an important safety guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools (e.g., when to use get_quote instead).

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