Listar pagamentos Pix recorrentes do Open Finance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces read-only behavior ('sem modificar a programação') but adds no new behavioral details beyond annotations. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects.

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 just two sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second clarifies intent. No wasted words. Front-loaded with key information.

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 complexity (nested params, output schema exists), the description is adequate. It covers the purpose and safe usage. Output schema is present, so return values need not be detailed. Pagination details are in the schema. Could be slightly richer on operational context, but overall complete for the task.

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 baseline is 3. The schema provides detailed but repetitive descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Valor do campo ... usado na entrada da operação'). The tool description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the verb (lista), resource (recorrências e pagamentos Pix), and scope (via Open Finance, conforme os filtros). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the read-only monitoring purpose ('sem modificar a programação'). The title and description align.

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?

Description explicitly states the intended use case: 'Use para acompanhar a série e suas parcelas sem modificar a programação.' This implies a monitoring role, distinguishing it from modification tools. No explicit alternatives are given, but the context is clear enough.

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