consultar_nfe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only query by the verb 'Consulta' and lists the returned data, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide additional context and output details. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema present, and a description that lists the returned data, the tool is adequately specified for an agent to call it correctly. It does not explain error handling or pagination, but for a simple query operation this is sufficient. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in the description.

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 fully describes the parameter with 100% coverage, including the 44-digit format and acceptance of spaces. The description adds context about where to find the key (DANFE) but does not add new semantic details about the parameter itself beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 queries NFe data by the 44-digit access key and lists the returned fields (emitente, destinatário, itens, valores, protocolo). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like parse_nfe_xml (which takes XML) and validar_chave_nfe (which only validates) by specifying the input format and expected output.

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 that the key is found on the DANFE, which helps the agent understand the input source. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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