Listar locations Pix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it does not modify links, aligning with annotations. No additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior) are provided, so the description adds limited value beyond the 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every word adds value, and it is efficient without unnecessary detail.

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 (multiple parameters, pagination) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose and read-only nature. It could mention pagination explicitly, but the schema and sibling tools provide 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description does not provide any additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema, fulfilling the baseline expectation.

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 lists Pix payload locations using filters, and specifies it is for locating charge/QR associations without modification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pix_create_location, pix_detail_location, and pix_generate_qr_code.

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 advises using the tool to locate associations without modifying links, which provides clear context. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the read-only intent is well communicated.

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