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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: it states the lookup 'does not write or make a blockchain RPC', is 'free of charge', requires reusing the 'X-Cobranca' header and honoring 'Retry-After', which is exactly the rate-limit/retry information an agent needs on a status-polling endpoint.

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?

Three sentences with little padding, but the phrasing is awkward and mixes languages ('Reads the address, confirmation, receipt and release...', 'When it is gerando...', 'pronto releases the reading links'), so the most important state-dependent guidance is buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned. It gestures at the response contents and names the status values (gerando, pronto, revisao) with what each implies, but never clarifies the response shape or the set of possible states, so an agent still has gaps about what a successful read yields.

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%, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the 64-hex-character token generation and reuse rules. The description reinforces token reuse ('Reuse X-Cobranca') and ID retention ('keep the ID'), but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a verb ('Reads') and a resource ('your charge'), but the enumeration 'the address, confirmation, receipt and release' is ambiguous about whether these are return fields or separate resources. It implicitly contrasts with 'criar_cobranca' by reading vs creating, but never states plainly that it returns the current state of a charge, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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?

There is real conditional guidance: 'When it is gerando, use GET /geracao for phases/pages' and 'In revisao, keep the ID and the transactions for support, without paying again.' However, it points at a raw HTTP path rather than the sibling tool 'generation_status', and it never explains when to call this tool versus 'recibo' or 'original_status', so the routing is only partly actionable.

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