rtc_validar_nbs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Valida se...' signals a validation/read operation but does not state whether it returns a boolean, what happens when 'data' is null, or any error conditions. It adds only the date-of-event context and no side-effect or return-behavior details.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that contains the subject, action, and key temporal condition with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the low tool complexity and schema listing all parameters, the description conveys the core purpose. But with no annotations and no output schema, it omits the return value, null-data behavior, and any caveats about what 'aplicável' means, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 clarify parameters. It glosses NBS as 'serviço' and links 'data' to the date of the taxable event, giving c_class_trib its role implicitly. However, it does not specify formats, allowed values, or the meaning of the nullable/default data parameter beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Valida') with a clear resource (NBS/service) and target (cClassTrib) plus a temporal qualifier (date of taxable event). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling rtc_validar_ncm because it names NBS, not NCM, and adds the cClassTrib applicability angle.

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 intended use is implied by mentioning NBS (service) vs the sibling rtc_validar_ncm, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions like 'use rtc_validar_ncm for goods.'

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