listar_status_pix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns only the status and is a lighter query, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format, pagination behavior, or any filters that affect results—leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a list operation.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a meaningful comparison with 'listar_pix'. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is minimally sufficient—it covers the main purpose and the relationship to siblings. However, it lacks any hint about the meaning of filter parameters or the response structure, so an agent might need to rely on the schema names or external knowledge.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any parameters (pagina, status, emissao_de, emissao_ate, registros_por_pagina) or how they affect results, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is a clear gap given the absence of schema descriptions.

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 is specific: 'Lista apenas o status das cobranças PIX geradas' clearly states the verb (lista), the resource (status das cobranças PIX), and the scope (geradas). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming 'listar_pix' and noting it is a 'consulta mais leve' (lighter query), which makes the tool's purpose distinct.

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 gives clear usage context by comparing to 'listar_pix': it is a lighter query for when only the status is needed. This explicitly names an alternative, satisfying the 'when to use vs alternatives' criterion, though it does not specify exclusions or conditions when to avoid using this tool.

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