Consultar webhook de uma chave Pix

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open world. The description adds the behavioral context of confirming the binding without alteration, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits sufficiently. It does not detail return values, but the output schema likely handles that. Complete enough for an agent.

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?

The schema already describes the 'chave' parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning or context for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, 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 it consults the webhook configuration for a Pix key. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on querying and confirming the URL and binding without altering the configuration.

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 when to use: to confirm URL and creation of the binding before depending on notifications. It implies it's a safe, read-only operation. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the sibling names like pix_config_webhook and pix_list_webhook make the context clear.

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