Obter comprovante de transação Pix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds that the tool retrieves a PDF, which is consistent with read-only behavior. No contradictory information is present.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and has no redundant or superfluous information. Every word contributes meaning.

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 existence of an output schema (though content unknown) and comprehensive annotations, the description is adequate. It explains the tool's core function and intended use, though it omits details like supported identifiers (handled by schema) and output format (partially mentioned as PDF).

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%, and the description mentions 'usando um de seus identificadores aceitos,' but this adds little beyond what the schema already provides through the anyOf structure and per-field descriptions. The description does not deepen parameter understanding.

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 obtains a PDF receipt of a Pix transaction using accepted identifiers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., pix_detail_charge, pix_send_detail) by focusing on receipt delivery/archival, which is a distinct purpose.

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 says 'Use para entregar ou arquivar a evidência de uma operação já realizada,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, it implies the need for an identifier and the purpose of evidence delivery, which is sufficient guidance.

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