Consultar split de cobrança Pix imediata

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which convey safety and idempotence. Description adds that the tool does not alter the charge, reinforcing the read-only behavior but not adding substantial new information 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 sentences, concise and to the point, with no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 that the tool has an output schema and the annotations fully cover behavioral aspects (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description is complete. It clearly explains the tool's purpose and that it is a read operation, which is sufficient for a query tool.

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%, and the schema already describes the only parameter (txid) as 'Identificador da cobrança Pix.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it queries split configuration for an immediate Pix charge, using verbs 'Consulta' and 'verificar' to indicate read-only inspection. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pix_split_link_charge by focusing on inspection without modification.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use para verificar' which implies appropriate usage context. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only nature is clear, and sibling tool names (e.g., pix_split_link_charge) indirectly provide contrast.

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