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

This description goes well beyond the annotations: it reveals the asynchronous behavior, the per-CNPJ file delivery mechanism, the possibility of pending days taking up to 30 minutes, and the requirement for the Document connection field. Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting them.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the returned fields, then explains the asynchronous workflow, retry guidance, connection requirement, and time limit. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists the output data fields, explains the pending-days behavior, and gives practical constraints. It could be more complete by explaining the optional input parameters, but an agent can still use it correctly for the main use case.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the period concept (data_inicio/data_fim) and mapping status to paid/canceled. However, it does not clarify the meaning of limite, account, or apenas_maquininha, and the required Document field is a connection setting rather than an input parameter.

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 that the tool returns Pix sales from Stone's card machine for a period, listing the exact data fields (date/time, value, fee, status, terminal, Pix key, e2e ID, payer data). It also differentiates itself from sibling sale tools by explaining the asynchronous file-based behavior specific to Pix.

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 provides clear usage context: it requests missing files, returns ready ones, lists pending days, and advises calling again later if days are still processing. It also states the connection requirement (Document field) and the maximum 31-day window. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for choosing another sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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