validate_nfe_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool parses XML, validates the key check digit, and checks CNPJ status, but it does not mention potential external calls, side effects, failure modes, or whether the CNPJ check may depend on external APIs.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses three short sentences to convey what the tool does, what it takes, and what it returns. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 covers the input, the main validation steps, and the output report fields (chave, validade, issues, resumo), which is enough for a caller to understand the basic contract. It does not specify error handling, XML schema constraints, or the meaning of issue codes, but these are not critical for initial 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 only parameter, xml_path, is described as a local XML file path in the tool description, which is essential semantic information not present in the schema. It could be more precise about absolute/relative path expectations or file extension requirements, but the meaning is clear.

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 performs a consolidated NFe validation from XML, including structural parsing, check-digit verification, and CNPJ issuer status. It specifies the input (local XML path) and the output report components, making the purpose distinct from narrower related tools such as validar_chave_nfe or parse_nfe_xml.

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 'Validacao consolidada' implies this is the comprehensive validation entry point, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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