consultar_status_sefaz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (querying status) with no side effects, which is implicit. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe or read-only, nor does it describe the response nature beyond the output schema. An explicit statement about being a non-destructive query would improve transparency.

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 three sentences, each providing essential information: what it does, the specific check, and its utility. No redundant words or unnecessary details.

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 simple one-parameter query tool and the presence of an output schema for return values, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and purpose. No additional details about output are needed.

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 already describes the 'uf' parameter as a two-letter state abbreviation, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies that the state must be Brazilian, provides examples ('SP', 'MG', 'RJ'), and mentions validation against Brazilian states. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description.

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: to query the current status of the SEFAZ service for a Brazilian state, specifically checking if the NFe webservice is operational. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like consultar_nfe (which queries NFe documents) and validates its specific role.

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 provides a clear use case: diagnosing transmission failures of tax documents. It implies using this tool before transmitting NFe to verify service availability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of siblings makes the guidance sufficient.

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