rtc_imposto_seletivo

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully warns that IS rates depend on ordinary law and remain undefined, which is important behavioral context. It does not disclose authentication, side effects, or response/error behavior, but the rate-status caveat is meaningful.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and endpoint, the second adds the critical legal limitation. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 has a nested required parameter with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining request construction and expected behavior. It does not, leaving the agent with only purpose, endpoint, and the rate-undefined caveat.

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 required parameter, 'operacao', is an opaque object with additionalProperties: true and zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain what fields the operation object should contain, what operation types are valid, or how goods values should be represented. An agent cannot construct a correct payload from this definition.

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 identifies the resource: base de cálculo do Imposto Seletivo em mercadorias, and provides the exact endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rtc_base_calculo_mercadorias and rtc_nfse_base_calculo, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'calcula' or 'retorna'.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain: this tool is for calculating the IS basis on goods. However, the description never names alternative tools or explicitly says when not to use it; the reminder about undefined rates is a legal caveat, not a usage guideline.

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