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

No annotations beyond title, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that CstIbsCbs is required and lists some fields. It does not discuss side effects, authentication needs, error behavior, or what happens upon success. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information. It wastes no words but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., listing parameter groups).

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 tool's complexity (23 parameters, creation logic), the description is incomplete. It lacks info on return values, error conditions, prerequisites, and does not leverage the existing output schema. A more comprehensive description is needed for effective use.

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 groups parameters ('CFOP + CSTs + aliquotas') and notes one required field, but with 23 parameters, this is insufficient. Most parameters are not explained, leaving the agent guessing their meaning and constraints.

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 the tool creates a new tax rule, lists key components (CFOP, CSTs, aliquotas), and provides a mapping for Tipo (1=NFe, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like tributacao_editar and tributacao_consultar.

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 for creating new rules but does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., when to use tributacao_criar vs tributacao_editar). It does highlight a requirement (CstIbsCbs is mandatory), but lacks general guidance on when or when not to use this tool.

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