consultar_aliquota_icms

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles transparency. It discloses offline behavior ('calcula a partir de tabelas em memória; não requer conexão') and a specific exclusion (4% for imported goods). It does not cover error handling for invalid UFs, but the parameter guidance mitigates that.

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 well-structured and informative, with clear sections for purpose, usage, behavior, and notes. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more terse.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter details, and a limitation, making it comprehensive for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that UFs must be uppercase and reinforcing examples. It also explains the parameters' role in the tool's purpose.

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 that the tool consults ICMS rates for interstate operations between taxpayers, specifically for calculating DIFAL and the applicable interstate rate for NF-e issuance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., consultar_cfop, consultar_ncm) by focusing on ICMS interstate rates.

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 'Quando usar' section explicitly lists scenarios: issuing interstate NF-e, calculating DIFAL, or verifying tax burden between states. It also provides a limitation note about the 4% rate for imported goods. However, it does not exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use.

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