list_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait – pagination via offset/limit ('paginação oficial') – and implies a read-only listing operation, but it omits auth requirements, default ordering, result size behavior, and any rate-limit 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the pagination mechanism, and the filter axes with zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing 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?

For an 8-parameter, unannotated, no-output-schema tool, the description is thin: it never touches return shape, ordering, or result completeness. The rich input schema compensates for the parameter side, but the behavioral surface remains underdescribed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly (limits, defaults, date formats, enums). The description adds only a coarse summary of filters and doesn't mention billingType or externalReference, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than more.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista cobranças') plus the operation's shape (pagination with offset/limit and filters). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_payment, which is also payment-retrieval, so it falls short of a 5.

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 enumerates filter dimensions, which hints at when the tool is useful, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use list_payments versus get_payment or simulate_payment, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Only implied usage is present.

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