manifestar_nfe

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

The description clearly discloses that the certificate is never sent to the server and signing is done locally, along with the requirement for an installed A1 certificate. It does not mention potential irreversibility or legal side effects, but the security-relevant behavior is well covered.

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 focused, containing only relevant requirements and event information. The repetition about the certificate is slightly redundant but does not hurt readability.

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 explains the event types and prerequisites but does not describe expected outputs, error behavior, or repeat submission considerations. Since an output schema exists, the missing return-value details are less critical, but some operational context is absent.

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?

All parameters are already described in the schema with clear definitions and defaults, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. It provides general event context, but no per-parameter details beyond the schema.

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: manifesting the recipient for an NF-e via NFeRecepcaoEvento. It names the specific operation and distinguishes it from the many sibling consultation/manipulation 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?

It provides domain context (e.g., event codes, Ciencia being a prerequisite for full XML) but does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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