Consultar transação PIX

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the 1-query-per-minute-per-transaction rate limit, the risk of account blocking, and that the tool enforces the throttle internally. It leaves auth requirements and error behavior (e.g. unknown ID, throttle rejection response) undisclosed, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the status vocabulary, then the critical rate-limit warning, then the webhook recommendation. No filler; the capitalization on the blocking warning is justified by the severity.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully substitutes for return documentation by listing the three statuses and ruling out 'failed', and it warns about the main operational hazard. Only error-path behavior and auth expectations are missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the UUID format and provenance already documented in the schema. The description's 'pelo ID' adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consulta o status de uma transação PIX pelo ID') and enumerates the possible status values, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings criar_cobranca_pix (creation) and consultar_saldo (balance), even without naming them.

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?

Explicitly steers usage: query by ID for status, do NOT poll more than once per minute per transaction, and prefer webhooks for payment confirmation. That gives both a when-not condition and a named alternative channel.

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