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

The description adds valuable behavioral information beyond annotations: it genuinely calls out that this is a *real fiscal act* and that `allow_writes` is required. It also discloses bulk execution support. It does not mention irreversibility or post-issuance effects, but the annotation level provides a baseline and the description meaningfully enhances it.

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 compact, front-loaded with the essential real-fiscal-act warning, and presents the intended use plus bulk support in just two paragraphs. 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?

Considering the tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the core purpose, the special object field semantics, the required permission, and bulk alternatives. It does not explain error behavior or fully specify every parameter, but it is enough for a competent agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining `correcoes` as an object containing only correction fields with examples, and by clarifying `cte_ids` and `empresa_ids` for bulk execution. It leaves `account` largely unexplained and `cte_id`/`empresa_id` implied rather than explicit, but the most important parameter is well-defined.

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's verb and resource: it emits a correction letter (CC-e) for an authorized CT-e. The action is specific and immediately distinguishable from sibling CT-e operations like canceling, averaging, or enumerating CT-e.

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 context by specifying the CT-e must be authorized and that `allow_writes` is required. It also explains batch usage via `cte_ids` and `empresa_ids`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the conditions are clear enough.

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