get_order_payment_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful behavioral trait — the 409 error when there is no pending Pix to reopen — and implies the 'pending' status requirement. But it does not state the return format (presumably a link/URL), authentication needs, or side effects, so disclosure is partial despite the good error signal.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause and the key error behavior appended second. No filler or repetition. Slightly dense phrasing in Portuguese ('compra avulsa OU adiantamento de renovação') but economical overall.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, no nested objects), so the definition is reasonably complete: purpose and error case are covered. However, it omits what the successful response returns (the payment link itself) and any precondition/prerequisite notes, leaving a small but real gap for a tool that an agent must invoke to obtain a link.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single order_id parameter. The description implies order_id refers to the pending order whose Pix needs re-access, but it never explains the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints directly. The compensation is minimal and leaves most parameter semantics to the parameter name itself.

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 states a clear verb+resource — 'Link de re-acesso ao Pix de um pedido pendente' — and gives the specific domain (Pix payment re-access for pending orders, standalone purchase or renewal advance) and the '2ª via' framing. It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling get_payment_link by scoping to pending Pix and mentioning the 409 behavior. It stops short of naming direct sibling comparisons, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 purpose clause 'para reenviar ao cliente' implies the usage context (resend a payment link to a customer), and the '409 se não há Pix pendente' acts as an implicit condition for when the call will fail. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many get_*/create_* siblings, leaving selection partly to inference.

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