validate_nfe_full

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains the validation steps and return report, but does not disclose error handling, side effects, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every word adds value. No redundancy or irrelevant 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 complexity (multiple validation steps) and presence of output schema, description covers inputs, outputs, and key behaviors. Lacks mention of prerequisites like network access for CNPJ check, but overall sufficient.

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 explained as 'caminho de arquivo XML local' (local XML file path), adding meaning beyond the schema's string type. Could specify format or constraints, but sufficiently 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?

Description clearly states it performs consolidated validation of an NFe from XML, listing specific checks (structural parse, key digit, CNPJ issuer status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'validar_chave_nfe' which only validates the key.

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?

Description implies usage when local XML file needs full validation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor conditions to avoid using it.

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