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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that the query counts against the NF-e query quota and by disclosing bulk execution via empresa_ids. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and front-loaded: it states the operation, lists returned data, gives usage context, notes quota impact, and mentions bulk support in a few sentences. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only lookup with annotations, the description covers purpose, key input, returned fields, prerequisite context, quota, and bulk behavior. The main gap is incomplete parameter semantics for account and empresa_id, but overall it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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?

The description explains the key chave parameter (44-digit access key) and clarifies that empresa_ids enables batched execution, which the schema does not convey. However, account and empresa_id are left unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage the description should compensate more fully.

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 consults NF-e data by 44-digit access key and enumerates the returned fields (sender, recipient, load value, weights, volumes, predominant product). It also positions the tool as the step before CT-e creation, distinguishing it from CT-e-related siblings.

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 phrase 'É o passo antes de criar o CT-e' gives clear contextual guidance on when to use this lookup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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