Consultar Pix recebido

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already establish safety and idempotence. The description adds concrete details about confirmable fields (value, time, payer, returns), enriching the behavioral expectations without contradiction.

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 concise sentences: first states the action and key identifier, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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 annotations (read-only, idempotent, open world), schema (100% parameter coverage), and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does and what information it provides, leaving no gaps.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (e2eId and exibirCodigoBanco) at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 tool queries a specific Pix receipt by end-to-end identifier. It specifies the action ('consulta'), the resource ('recebimento Pix'), and what details it confirms (value, time, payer, returns), distinguishing it from listing or sending 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 says 'Use para confirmar...' indicating when to use it. While it doesn't list alternatives like pix_received_list or pix_send_detail, the context from siblings and the phrase 'de uma transação já recebida' clarifies the scope.

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