Reenviar boleto por e-mail

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it resends an email (a mutation) and does not issue a new charge, which aligns with the annotations but does not provide additional behavioral traits beyond what is implied.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and every word adds value. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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's low complexity, annotations, and output schema presence, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose and usage scenario, though it could mention prerequisites (e.g., charge must have a billet generated) or response expectations, but these are not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context to the parameters (email and id) beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (resend by email) and the resource (already generated billet for a charge). It distinguishes from other send-email tools by specifying 'boleto já gerado' and 'cobrança,' but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like send_link_email or send_carnet_email.

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 scenario: 'Use quando o pagador precisar receber novamente o documento' and notes what the operation does not do ('não emite uma cobrança diferente'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or mention of alternative tools.

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