Listar lotes de cobranças Pix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool does not alter contents ('sem alterar seus conteúdos'), which aligns with readOnlyHint. It does not provide additional behavioral details such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. Since annotations carry the burden, the description adds minimal extra transparency.

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 very concise: two sentences with 21 words. It front-loads the core functionality and usage intent, with no redundant or unnecessary text. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple nature of a list tool, full schema coverage, and presence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate. It does not explain return values (handled by output schema) or pagination details (covered in params). The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the batch-listing scope, but it is clear from context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented with field-level descriptions. The description only generically mentions 'período e filtros aceitos' without adding semantic context or usage examples for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 lists due charge batches ('Lista lotes de cobranças Pix com vencimento') with period and filters. It distinguishes from sibling mutation tools by emphasizing read-only monitoring ('acompanhar sua criação sem alterar seus conteúdos'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 some usage context ('Use para localizar lotes e acompanhar sua criação') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like pix_create_due_charge_batch or pix_update_due_charge_batch. The annotation readOnlyHint reinforces the non-destructive nature, but the description lacks explicit exclusions.

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