Iniciar pagamento Pix agendado via Open Finance

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it 'produz sua jornada de autorização' (produces authorization journey) and 'movimentará valores' (moves money), confirming destructive nature. No contradiction, but does not detail authorization flow or side effects beyond movement of 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. No wasted words. Efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage. It mentions the authorization journey, which is important context. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites like Open Finance consent or idempotency handling, but those are partially covered by schema and annotations.

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 already documents all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only states the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it initiates a scheduled Pix payment via Open Finance and produces an authorization journey. The verb 'Solicita a iniciação' and the resource 'Pix para data futura' are specific. It distinguishes from immediate Pix payments by mentioning 'data futura' and from other scheduling/cancel operations via sibling context.

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 quando o pagamento deve ocorrer posteriormente' (use when payment must occur later), providing clear context for when to use. It does not state when not to use, but the sibling 'of_start_pix_payment' implies alternative for immediate payments, so guidance is adequate.

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