Enviar Pix entre contas da mesma titularidade

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of moving balance adds modest context. The constraint of same ownership is more of a purpose/guideline than a behavioral trait. No contradictions exist, but the description adds limited behavioral detail beyond 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 sentences, each earned its place: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or irrelevant 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?

An output schema exists (though not provided), which reduces the burden for describing return values. The description covers the core constraint and usage reminder, but it lacks differentiation from the similar sibling 'pix_send', which could lead to confusion. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond general advice to verify origin, destination, and value, which maps to high-level concepts but does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 Pix transfer exclusively for accounts of the same ownership. The verb 'solicita' and resource 'transferência Pix para mesma titularidade' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from the broader 'pix_send' sibling tool by adding the constraint of same ownership.

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 to use after verifying origin, destination, and value, and notes that it moves balance. This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'pix_send' for different ownership scenarios.

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