Solicitar devolução de Pix recebido

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'move balance' (consistent with destructiveHint) and 'identifies the devolution within the transaction', informing the agent about the return value and side effects. 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 two sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence provides essential information: the action and a usage caution.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose, side effects, and post-conditions. Could add more detail about when not to use it or prerequisites like authentication, but overall adequate.

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 three parameters (e2eId, id, valor). The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 requests a refund linked to a received Pix and identifies it within the transaction. The verb 'Solicitar' and resource 'devolução vinculada a um Pix recebido' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like pix_send or pix_detail_devolution.

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 usage condition: 'Use após conferir o recebimento e o valor, pois a operação movimenta saldo.' It warns about balance movement, but does not explicitly exclude alternative scenarios like querying existing devolutions (pix_detail_devolution) or sending a new Pix.

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