rtc_validar_ncm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a validation, that it is date-sensitive, and that incompatible NCM contaminates the chain. However, it does not describe return values, errors, or whether it mutates anything.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first states the core validation, and the second gives practical usage guidance. Front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, and when to use. However, there is no output schema and no annotation, so the lack of return/error behavior disclosure is a notable gap; an agent cannot predict what 'valida' yields in invalid cases.

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 so by explaining the relationship between NCM and cClassTrib and interpreting 'data' as 'data do fato gerador', giving domain meaning beyond the raw schema. It lacks format constraints but covers all three parameters meaningfully.

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' and clearly states the resource relationship: NCM aplicável a um cClassTrib na data do fato gerador. This distinguishes it from sibling rtc_validar_nbs, since it explicitly targets NCM rather than NBS.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use antes de emitir', giving a clear when-to-use context and the consequence of not validating. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use condition, so it falls just 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.