Listar recorrências de Pix Automático

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

The description reinforces the read-only nature already declared by annotations (readOnlyHint=true), stating 'sem alterar seus estados.' It adds minimal additional behavioral insight beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences: first states the action and context, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's complexity (many optional filters, nested pagination) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage. It could have briefly mentioned pagination or filter categories, but remains 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 parameters. The description mentions 'período e filtros informados' but does not add specific meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3.

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 automatic Pix recurrences based on period and filters, and its use case is to monitor authorizations and locate agreements without altering states. This distinguishes it from many related Pix tools (e.g., pix_list_charges, pix_detail_automatic_charge).

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 acompanhar autorizações e localizar acordos sem alterar seus estados,' providing clear context for when to use (monitoring/reading) and implying not to use for state changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools among the many siblings.

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