fiscal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the default period logic and lists outputs, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or any errors/limits.

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?

A single dense sentence packs the purpose, outputs, and default behavior. It is front-loaded and efficient, wasting no words.

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 two optional parameters, the description covers the essential behavior. It does not reference the output schema or mention edge cases, but given the simple interface it is adequate. Slightly more context on what 'veredito' means or typical use cases would help.

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 provides only names and nullability, with zero description. The description compensates by explaining the meaning of ano/mes and the default handling when omitted. This adds valuable meaning 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 identifies the resource (fiscal competence data) and specifies the outputs (mainnet exits, R$ total via PTAX, and PF obligation threshold verdict). It is distinct from siblings like 'gasto' or 'compras', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get'.

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 only usage guidance is that omitting year/month defaults to the current period. No mention of when to use this tool versus siblings, no scenarios, no exclusions. The agent is left to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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