consultar_status_sefaz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the requirement for mTLS with a digital certificate A1, including the environment variables (NFE_CERTIFICADO_PATH / NFE_CERTIFICADO_SENHA). It also clarifies that this is a real-time status check and that mTLS is a transport requirement for all SEFAZ webservices. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of a status check implies it, and the disclosed prerequisites are valuable. No contradictions with annotations exist since none are provided.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the use case and requirements. Every sentence adds meaningful information: what it does, when to use it, and what prerequisites exist. No fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 tool with a single parameter, an output schema, and a simple status-check function, the description covers the essential points: what it does, when to use it, and the critical certificate requirement. It does not describe the output format, but that is covered by the output schema. It also does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., network errors or invalid state code), but the schema already validates the input. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly, though it could add a note about error handling.

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 describes the sole parameter 'uf' with full coverage (100%), including the format (2-letter state code) and validation against Brazilian states. The description adds no additional information about the parameter itself. Since the schema handles the semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat it.

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 purpose: to query the real SEFAZ service status for a Brazilian state via NfeStatusServico4. It uses a specific verb and resource ('Consulta o status real do serviço SEFAZ') and explains what it verifies (whether the SEFAZ webservice for NFe issuance is operational). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like consultar_nfe or validar_chave_nfe, which focus on individual invoices or keys.

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 a clear use case: 'Útil para diagnosticar falhas de transmissão de notas fiscais.' It tells the agent when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would be needed for a perfect 5. The context is clear enough to guide selection, but it lacks explicit exclusions.

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