Criar adesão a pagamento automático Open Finance

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

Annotations indicate this is a write, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the enrollment requires an authorization journey, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or describe error states. Given annotation coverage, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose directly, and the second provides usage context. It is well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 complex nested schema and many siblings, the description is adequate but sparse. It covers the essential purpose and prerequisite, but does not summarize key required fields or the output schema. The input schema's fullness compensates partially, but the description could be more informative for an agent navigating many options.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description does not need to add details. It does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the overall purpose, meeting the baseline but not adding extra value.

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 identifies the tool's action (creating an enrollment) and resource (automatic payments via Open Finance). It partially distinguishes from siblings by noting it is a prerequisite for starting payments, but does not explicitly contrast with update or 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 a clear usage context ('Use before starting payments of this modality') and mentions the authorization journey. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool nor explicitly contrast with sibling tools like of_update_automatic_enrollment or of_list_automatic_enrollment.

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