Consultar adesões de pagamento automático

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. Description adds that it consults parameters and status, but does not disclose any new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states the action, second sentence provides use case. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While purpose and use case are clear, the tool has a complex input schema with multiple query modes and an output schema exists. The description does not elaborate on these aspects, leaving some gaps for an agent to correctly interpret usage patterns.

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 schema documents all parameters thoroughly. Description does not add any additional meaning or guidance on the complex anyOf alternatives, thus adding no value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it consults parameters and status of Open Finance automatic payment enrollments, with a specific verb 'Consultar' and resource 'adesões de pagamento automático'. It also distinguishes from siblings like of_list_automatic_pix_payment by focusing on enrollment check for authorization before charges.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use para verificar a autorização disponível antes de iniciar uma cobrança automática', providing clear context and a specific use case. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare with other list tools like of_list_automatic_pix_payment.

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