Consultar pagamento de conta

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context that it is non-destructive ('sem repetir a ordem de pagamento') and used for monitoring. No contradictions, and it reinforces the safe read-only behavior.

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 consists of two concise sentences: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidance. Every word is necessary, no fluff, and front-loaded with the key action.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, and identifier. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple read-only query tool, it is largely complete.

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 description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; the parameter description in schema is already clear but somewhat circular. No extra semantic value from the tool description.

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 'Consulta uma solicitação de pagamento de conta pelo identificador,' specifying the verb (consultar) and resource (payment request). It also distinguishes from related tools by noting it is for tracking without reissuing the payment order, differentiating it from creation or mutation tools.

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 explicitly guides usage: 'Use para acompanhar processamento, confirmação ou falha sem repetir a ordem de pagamento.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (to check status) and when not to (avoid resending the payment).

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