Tentar novamente pagamento com cartão

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

The description confirms the destructive nature (pode efetivar a cobrança), which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. However, it adds little beyond the annotation—no details on side effects, authentication needs, or what happens to the charge state. The description is minimal.

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 one sentence with two clear clauses, no redundancy, and no unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the action and condition.

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?

The description covers the basic scenario but does not explain what constitutes a 'compatible charge', the expected output, or error conditions. Given the complexity of nested parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter information, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: to retry a card payment for a compatible charge after an unauthorized attempt. The verb 'tentar novamente' and the context of 'pagamento por cartão' make the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the retry scenario.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use após uma tentativa não autorizada e com dados válidos'. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternative tools, but the condition is clear and relevant.

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