Listar cobranças

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint to true. The description reinforces the read-only nature by stating 'sem modificar seus estados', adding some value. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, auth) are disclosed, but annotations cover the main safety profile.

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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence provides usage guidance. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many parameters, many sibling tools) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It lacks details about pagination behavior or default sorting, but these are partially addressed by the schema and output schema. Overall adequate for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning or nuance beyond what the schema provides, nor does it explain interactions between filters.

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 the verb 'list' and resource 'charges' and provides specific use cases (reconciliation, monitoring, locating transactions). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like pix_list_charges by focusing on 'cobranças' (billet, carnet, subscription, card) rather than PIX charges, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 advises use for reconciliation, monitoring, and locating transactions without modifying states, which gives clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or provide alternative tools for other purposes (e.g., modification tools).

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