consultar_ncm

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

The description discloses that the tool works offline using a bundled SQLite database and warns about the database being only a sample (~10,515 records). It also specifies the expected input format. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does well.

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, with five sentences each serving a distinct purpose: function, usage, offline behavior, database warning, and input format. It is front-loaded 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema provided), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, parameter format, and limitations. It is complete for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema already describes the parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing an explicit format specification ('8 dígitos numéricos, com ou sem pontuação') and an example, which enhances understanding 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 function: consulting the Mercosur Common Nomenclature (NCM) for a product, with specific applications like tax calculation and document issuance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like consultar_cest or consultar_cfop.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool ('ao emitir nota fiscal, fazer importação/exportação ou calcular tributos'). It does not provide guidance on when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear.

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