rtc_calcular_com_trilha

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by identifying the observability endpoint and the fact that it returns a step-by-step apuração. It does not disclose rate limits, idempotency, or explicit read-only status, but the observability framing and output description provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main behavior is stated first, followed by clear usage guidance, making it easy to scan and act on.

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?

The tool is complex enough with six parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains purpose and use cases but not how to fill the parameters or interpret the response. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter details. The six parameters, including required itens and municipio, are left unexplained, and the phrase 'same calculation' does not compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.

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 it performs the same calculation as rtc_calcular_tributos but through the RFB observability endpoint, returning the step-by-step calculation audit. This distinguishes it from its sibling and names the specific resource and behavior.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use quando o número precisar ser defendido' with concrete examples such as internal review, client disagreement, and tax authority inquiries. It also implies the alternative rtc_calcular_tributos for non-audit calculations.

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