Criar cobrança PIX

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: the unit convention (always centavos, never decimals), the returned artifacts, and the recommended post-creation flow. It says nothing about authentication requirements, idempotency/duplicate-charge risk, charge expiration, or error behavior — significant gaps for a financial mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return values, followed by the critical unit rule, optional features, and the recommended next step. No filler wording and nothing repeated unnecessarily.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, but the description compensates by describing what is returned (EMV copy-paste code and QR Code) and how the payment is observed (webhook). For a payment-creation tool, it is nearly complete, missing only operational details such as idempotency, charge expiration, and permission requirements.

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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description adds value by re-emphasizing the centavos rule with an example (1000 = R$ 10,00) and by summarizing the optional split between PushinPay accounts and the webhook_url. It restates rather than expanding the split sum constraint and the webhook readiness caveat, which are already in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Cria uma cobrança PIX (cash-in)") and even names the return payload (código copia-e-cola EMV e QR Code), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling read tools (consultar_saldo, consultar_transacao), but the create-vs-query distinction is unambiguous from the wording.

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?

It gives concrete downstream guidance: after creating, prefer waiting for the webhook payment notification rather than repeatedly polling status, which effectively steers the agent away from over-using consultar_transacao. It stops short of stating preconditions or when not to create a charge.

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