GET /receivingMethods (Receiving Method)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint (non-destructive) and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: array fields can accept multiple comma-separated values, and the API will fall back to old pagination if 'limit' is omitted. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains array field behavior, third gives pagination warning. No redundancy, front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description covers critical aspects: pagination deprecation timeline and multi-value array behavior. It lacks explicit description of return structure, but for a list tool this is acceptable. The annotations already cover read-only and open-world hints.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add new insights about parameters beyond what the schema provides. The note about array values applies to response fields, not parameters.

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 'Listagem paginada de Meios de Recebimento' (paginated listing of receiving methods), specifying both the verb (list) and resource (receiving methods) with pagination scope. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_receiving_method' (singular) and other list_* tools by targeting a specific resource type.

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 explicit guidance on pagination: it warns that to use the new pagination model, the 'limit' parameter is required; otherwise, the old model (to be deprecated) is used. It does not mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of pagination transition is valuable.

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