Devolver pagamento Pix agendado do Open Finance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the caution about moving resources and checking before use, which gives extra context about the operation's impact. It does not disclose potential side effects beyond what annotations already imply.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The purpose is stated first, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema and the relatively straightforward operation (executing a refund for an executed scheduled payment), the description provides sufficient context. It covers the action and preconditions, though it could briefly mention what the response contains.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100% with descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Solicita a devolução'), the specific resource ('pagamento Pix agendado que já foi executado'), and the context (use after checking). It distinguishes this tool from other pix devolution or cancellation tools by specifying the scheduled and executed nature of the payment.

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 guidance on when to use: after verifying the payment and the refunded amount. It also warns about moving funds. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools for non-executed payments.

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