getCreditCards

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The description merely restates that the tool lists credit cards, providing no additional behavioral context such as whether it returns all cards, whether pagination is involved, or any authentication/authorization requirements. It is essentially tautological with the tool name.

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 a single short phrase 'Listar cartões de crédito' with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise, fitting the purpose well.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, this description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and provides no hints on when to choose this over other getter tools, making it slightly incomplete for an agent deciding between 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 'Listar cartões de crédito' clearly states the action (list) and resource (credit cards) with a specific verb and plural resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the singular sibling getCreditCard, but the plural form implies retrieving all credit cards rather than one.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getCreditCard, getCreditCardInvoices, or getCreditCardsInvoicePayment. The description does not mention contexts, exclusions, or recommend alternative tools for specific needs.

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