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

Description adds critical behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, including pagination details (default 20, max 50, offset, TotalGeral) and a directive not to invent or group results. This fully discloses how the tool behaves.

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 concise with 4 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, filtering options, usage guidance, and pagination. No redundancy, essential information front-loaded.

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?

Given the 5 parameters and pagination, the description covers filtering and pagination well. Output schema exists, so return format is handled. It lacks error conditions or default behavior when no parameters are given, but overall it's adequate for the task.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's meaning: Tipo (1=NFe,2=NFCe,3=Energia/Comunicacao), Cfop (specific CFOP), Termo (search term), and pagination (Limite, Offset). It adds value but could be slightly more precise on data types.

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 lists company tax rules (CFOP, CST, aliquotas) and specifies filtering options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tributacao_criar/editar by guiding use before creating a nota fiscal, making purpose highly specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool before creating a nota fiscal to know which taxes to apply. It provides pagination instructions and implies read-only usage, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives beyond pagination.

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