rtc_situacoes_tributarias

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the table is 'official' and valid as of a date, and hints at the tributo parameter. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, how errors are surfaced, or how date/tributo affect the actual result.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. Both sentences serve useful purposes: the first defines the resource and date scope, and the second clarifies the tributo values. It is appropriately compact, though the parameter line reads more like a schema note than a full usage explanation.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, this description is incomplete. It does not describe what the returned table contains, the expected date format, the effect of choosing each tributo value, or error behavior. The core idea is clear, but an agent would lack enough context to confidently interpret or validate the result.

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 does add meaning to the 'tributo' parameter by listing the allowed values 'cbs-ibs' or 'imposto-seletivo', which is absent from the schema. The 'data' parameter semantics are only weakly implied by 'vigente na data', and its format and null behavior are not clarified.

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 as the official CST (Código de Situação Tributária) table and adds a date-scope qualifier ('vigente na data'). It is not a mere restatement of the tool name, but it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'consulta' or 'retorna', and it does not differentiate from sibling rtc_classificacoes_tributarias.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rtc_classificacoes_tributarias, rtc_calcular_tributos, or rtc_imposto_seletivo. The description implies the tool provides CST data, but it never states use cases, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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