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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context not covered by annotations: the same-API-key access restriction and the privacy guarantee (sem dados pessoais do titular). It does not detail rate limits or error behavior, but the added scope and privacy notes are meaningful.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first front-loads the core action and returned data; the second efficiently adds scope and privacy constraints.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned and states the key access limitation, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for the single order_uuid parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description contextualizes the order as one created by create_pix_order but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (consulta), resource (status de um pedido), and ties it directly to create_pix_order, its creation sibling. It also enumerates the returned components (pagamento, videoconferência, emissão, Pix ativo, links), making the tool's scope unambiguous against the other siblings.

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 by specifying that the order must have been created by create_pix_order and that only same-API-key orders are accessible. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions beyond the API-key constraint.

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