pix_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: it may mutate local state ('hydrating the local cache when needed') and it enforces an ownership precondition. It does not cover auth prerequisites beyond ownership, rate limits, or what the endpoint returns on error or pending states, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precondition and the terminal state, with no filler. Dense domain jargon slightly reduces immediate comprehension, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description should enumerate the possible status values and what the terminal/failure outcomes look like. It gives only depix_sent as terminal success and leaves the rest of the response shape and error cases undefined, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's ownership note essentially restates the schema text for email. It adds some linkage between swap_id and pix_receive, but nothing about format or validation beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is right.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a PIX → DePix deposit through Ankara'), which separates it from pix_receive (initiation) and pix_list (enumeration) among the siblings. It stops short of a 5 because the key domain terms (Ankara, DePix) are unexplained and it never explicitly names the sibling it is not.

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?

'Terminal success is depix_sent' tells the agent when to stop polling, which is genuine usage guidance, and the ownership requirement is stated. However, it never names an alternative (pix_list, pix_receive), gives no polling cadence, and says nothing about non-terminal or failure states, so the when-to-use picture is only implied.

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