rtc_classificacoes_tributarias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the main behaviors: unfiltered table, CST filtering, and document-specific classification lookup. It also warns that this is the highest operational-risk table in the transition. It does not explain the role of data or tributo or describe the return shape, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 short, front-loaded with the resource and general behavior, then organized by increasing filter specificity. The final risk sentence adds useful context without padding.

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 tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the common lookup paths and signals operational risk. However, it does not explain the data parameter, the tributo parameter's effect, or what fields the returned classifications contain. An agent could call it correctly in simple cases but would lack guidance for the full parameter space.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for cst and for the sigla_dfe + c_class_trib pair, but leaves data and tributo essentially unexplained beyond tributo's default value in the schema. That is partial, not complete, parameter coverage.

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 identifies the exact resource ('Tabela oficial de cClassTrib/Classificação Tributária'), uses a concrete verb ('devolve'), and explains three distinct query modes. The final line ('É a tabela que decide alíquota, redução e crédito') differentiates it from sibling tax-reference tools.

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 clearly states when to use each parameter combination: no cst returns the whole table, cst filters by CST, and sigla_dfe + c_class_trib returns a specific classification. It also gives context for why this tool matters (it drives rate, reduction, and credit). It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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