listar_bandeiras_cartao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, and the scope of accepted brands is clear, but pagination behavior and return format are not mentioned. The description adds some value but leaves room for ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 only two optional parameters, the description conveys the essential purpose. However, it omits mention of pagination behavior and does not describe the return structure, which is notable given the absence of an output schema and annotations. The gaps are moderate but not severe.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the pagination parameters at all. While the parameter names ('página' and 'registros por página') are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 function with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('bandeiras de cartão de crédito/débito aceitas pelo OMIE'). It uniquely identifies the purpose and differentiates from sibling tools, none of which cover card brands.

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 implies usage for obtaining accepted card brands from OMIE, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. Since the purpose is straightforward and no similar sibling exists, the context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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