listar_pix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists PIX charges and supports filters, but does not mention pagination behavior, default ordering, response format, or any side effects (e.g., read-only nature). For a list operation, the lack of detail about result limits, date format expectations, or status values leaves the agent with significant unknowns.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the filters. It is concise, containing no unnecessary words, and every word earns its place. Length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 5 optional parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains 'what' but not 'how': no information about pagination defaults, maximum results, date format for filters, or the response structure. The high-calibration example shows a similar tool with richer guidance; here the agent must guess at critical usage details.

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. It does add meaning by correlating 'período de emissão' with emissao_de/emissao_ate and 'status' with the status parameter. However, it does not explain the pagination parameters (pagina, registros_por_pagina) or any parameter formats, leaving them to be inferred from names and defaults. Partial compensation is provided, but not complete.

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 'Lista cobranças PIX geradas' uses a specific verb (Lista) and resource (cobranças PIX geradas) that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also mentions the available filters (período de emissão e status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like obter_pix (get single) or cancelar_pix (cancel). The scope 'geradas' (generated) further refines what is listed.

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 implies usage by stating the filters available, suggesting it is for listing PIX charges with optional time/status filtering. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, unlike the high-calibration example which references another tool. The implied context is clear but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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