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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the supported status vocabulary and bulk execution via transaction_ids. It does not cover response shape or rate limits, but no contradictions exist.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value—the status list and bulk-support note are both useful. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple read-only status tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description gives core semantics, statuses, and batch behavior. It is slightly incomplete because the optional account parameter is unexplained and the return structure is not described, but overall it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains transaction_id as the lookup key and transaction_ids as the batch variant, but it omits the account parameter and provides no format or constraint details for the identifiers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('status atual de um boleto'), clearly identifying the tool's action. It enumerates possible statuses and is easily distinguishable from siblings like paghiper_get_pix_status and paghiper_cancel_boleto.

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 clearly indicates this is for boleto status lookup and notes bulk support via transaction_ids. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource scope is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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