consultar_ncm

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits. It states 'Comportamento offline: lê do banco SQLite bundled; não requer conexão.' and includes an AVISO about the sample data ('pode conter apenas uma amostra da TIPI completa'). This is transparent about how the tool operates and its limitations.

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 well-structured with explicit labels (Purpose, Quando usar, Comportamento offline, AVISO, Formato) making it easy to parse. Each sentence contributes value, though some redundancy with the schema slightly reduces efficiency. Overall it is concise and clearly organized.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use the tool and what to expect (offline, sample data). It does not detail return values, but an output schema is assumed present, so that gap is acceptable. The inclusion of limitations and use cases makes it contextually complete for typical decision-making.

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 schema already fully describes the 'ncm' parameter with format and examples (100% coverage). The description repeats this information ('Formato do parâmetro: 8 dígitos numéricos...') but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. It is helpful reinforcement but not additive.

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 function: 'Consulta a Nomenclatura Comum do Mercosul (NCM) de um produto.' It specifies the resource (NCM) and the action (consult). It also mentions the intended use cases (NF-e, IPI, SPED) which distinguishes it from other consultation tools.

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 lists when to use the tool: 'Quando usar: ao emitir nota fiscal, fazer importação/exportação ou calcular tributos.' This provides clear guidance on appropriate scenarios. It also warns about the offline nature and potential data incompleteness, helping the agent set expectations.

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