rtc_calcular_tributos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies the read-style computational nature and describes the response shape per tax (valor, alíquota, memoriaCalculo, legal framework). However, it does not disclose potential errors, external dependencies, rate limits, or side effects beyond the implied calculation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a useful parameter list. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose schema provides no descriptions, and it avoids fluff.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the required inputs and return shape, but it does not explain all optional parameters or how to choose this tool over related calculators. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It documents the core parameters itens, municipio, and data_hora_fato_gerador with types and examples, but omits uf, versao_roc, identifcador, and compra_governamental, leaving part of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 states a specific action and resource: it calculates CBS, IBS, and Imposto Seletivo for an operation, item by item. This distinguishes it from validation/status siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with rtc_calcular_com_trilha.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many siblings, and no alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned. The description gives invocation details, but an agent must infer when this is the right calculator among the sibling set.

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