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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is free, enforces a 30-second minimum interval, reuses the X-Cobranca header, and must respect Retry-After. It also explicitly states the query neither writes nor performs blockchain RPC, which is meaningful reassurance for a status/payment tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by operational constraints and then state-specific handling. Several clauses are telegraphic fragments, but there is little genuine waste for the amount of behavioral information conveyed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing what an agent gets back, and it names the lifecycle states (gerando, pronto, em revisao) and what each implies. That is close to complete for a status tool, though the exact shape of the returned status fields is left to inference.

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 both parameters (id and cobranca_token) are already documented, including the token format. The description reinforces that the same cobranca_token must be reused (via X-Cobranca header) but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: queries payment and release status using the same cobranca_token. It also carves out scope by stating it does not initiate work ('não inicia trabalho'), which separates it from the create/start path. It stops short of naming a sibling tool directly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated from the large set of cobranca/geracao tools.

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?

Gives conditional routing: when in the 'gerando' state use GET /geracao for phases/pages, and when 'pronto' the read links are released. It also instructs to reuse X-Cobranca, respect Retry-After, and not to pay again while 'em revisao'. This is practical when/when-not guidance, though it routes to an HTTP path rather than naming sibling tools explicitly.

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