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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this by explaining it only queries status. It adds important behavioral details: it does not return the QR or copy-paste code, and it only accesses charges from the connected account. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 somewhat verbose but each sentence adds useful information, such as status definitions, exclusions, and account scoping. It is well-structured and avoids irrelevant details. It could be slightly more compact, but the extra context is valuable.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the possible status values and their meanings. It also clarifies what the tool does not return, which helps prevent misuse. A more explicit output format would increase completeness, but the status explanations are sufficient for typical usage.

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 sole parameter `id` has a clear description in the schema and is further elaborated in the tool description as the ID returned by the panel or POST /api/v1/creditos. Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter meaning is well documented. The description adds enough context to make the input unambiguous.

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 checks the status of a Pix credit charge by ID, and explicitly distinguishes it from creation tools by noting there is no MCP tool to create charges. It also clarifies what statuses mean, making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling tools are all vehicle data tools, so this credit-status tool stands apart clearly.

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 explains when to use the tool: to check the status of an existing credit charge created via the panel or POST /api/v1/creditos. It also warns that the tool only sees charges from the connected account and that it does not return the copy-paste code or QR, which helps set expectations. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but those are unrelated vehicle-data endpoints, so the usage context is still clear.

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