Consultar recorrência de Pix Automático

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description reinforces that the tool does not modify the recurring agreement, which aligns with readOnlyHint. It adds value by specifying the aspects consulted (authorization, state, parameters). No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every word is meaningful.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema (indicated), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, and behavioral note (no modification). It is complete and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (idRec) with a schema description that explains it is the identifier. The tool description itself does not elaborate further, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is appropriate. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: consulting a recurring automatic Pix payment by its identifier. It specifies the action (consultar) and the resource (recorrência de Pix Automático). The phrase 'Use para acompanhar autorização, estado e parâmetros vigentes sem modificar o acordo recorrente' further clarifies its read-only monitoring role, distinguishing it from modification 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 provides a clear use case: monitoring authorization, status, and current parameters without modification. This implies when to use it (for read-only checks) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the large sibling list, explicit differentiation would be beneficial, but the guidance is still clear.

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