Gerar Pix copia e cola

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key traits: it generates a static EMV BR Code with CRC16, allows payer-entered amount when no value is supplied, and normalizes/truncates name and city. It does not discuss side effects or error conditions, but the output schema covers return values.

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 two tight sentences and front-loads the core purpose before adding behavioral details. No sentence 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?

The schema and output schema are rich and already document parameters and returns. The description supplies the critical generation behavior and normalization details, though it does not cover error handling or edge cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: optional 'valor' means the payer supplies the amount, and 'nome'/'cidade' are ASCII-normalized and truncated to 25/15 characters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Gera o payload Pix estático (BR Code, padrão EMV) com CRC16.' It clearly identifies the tool as a Pix payload generator, distinguishing it from validation-focused siblings such as validar_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 explains the conditional behavior when 'valor' is omitted: 'Sem valor, o pagador informa o valor.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like validar_pix, so usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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