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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which fully covers the safe-read behavior profile. The description adds the context that it should be used as a pre-flight check and mentions it addresses 'autorização' status specifically. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but with strong annotations and an output schema present, the added behavioral value is moderate.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states purpose; the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place. The description is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter status-check tool.

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 status-checking tool with 1 parameter (fully documented), strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), and a provided output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, and the tool's role. It doesn't explain the return values, but with an output schema present, that's not required.

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 100%, and the one parameter (ModeloDocumento) has a full enum breakdown (55 - NF-e; 65 - NFC-e) plus a default value explained in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states it consults the SEFAZ authorization service status for a UF and environment (Consulta o status do serviço de autorização da SEFAZ para uma UF e ambiente). The verb 'Consulta' plus the resource (status do serviço de autorização) is specific. While sibling tools include many emission tools, this one stands out as a status/health check — but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate it from siblings beyond its obvious distinct purpose.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use antes de uma emissão em lote ou quando suspeitar de instabilidade' (use before batch emission or when suspecting instability). This gives concrete when-to-use context. However, it doesn't offer explicit when-not-to-use or name alternatives, though given the sibling list, none of those tools would be alternatives for status checking.

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