Reenviar carnê por e-mail

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

Annotations provide some hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds context: the operation resends an existing carnet without creating new ones. It does not disclose rate limits or authentication requirements, but given the simple nature of the tool and existing annotations, the description adds reasonable behavioral context.

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 fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers purpose and usage. It could mention that the carnet must exist, but the schema's required parameter 'id' implies that. For a simple resend tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'id' and 'email' parameters. It implicitly references them but lacks extra details like format or constraints.

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: 'Reenvia por e-mail um carnê já criado com suas parcelas.' It specifies the resource (carnê already created) and the operation (resend by email). It also distinguishes from generating new carnês or charges, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'create_carnet' or 'send_billet_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 explicitly says when to use: 'Use quando o pagador precisar receber novamente os documentos.' It also clarifies what not to do: 'sem gerar outro carnê ou novas cobranças.' This provides clear context and alternatives, making it easy for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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