GET /charges (Charge)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds behavioral context about pagination modes and multi-value parameter support, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits, result ordering, or response format. It complements annotations without contradiction.

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 compact with three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a multi-value clarification, and the third provides a critical pagination warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 13 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers pagination and multi-value usage but lacks details on result behavior (e.g., default sort order, which fields are returned, or whether results are paginated with offset). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent to understand all nuances.

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 100%, setting baseline at 3. The description goes beyond by explaining that parameters defined as arrays (e.g., tagId, customerId) can accept multiple comma-separated values, and it emphasizes the mandatory nature of 'limit' for new pagination. This adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Listagem paginada de Cobranças' (Paginated listing of charges), clearly identifying the tool's purpose as a list operation for charge entities with pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_charge (single retrieval) and other list tools.

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 provides crucial guidance on pagination: it warns that to use the new pagination model, the 'limit' parameter must be provided; otherwise, the old model (to be deprecated in 2026) is used. This helps the agent choose the correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-to-use/not-to-use guidance.

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