Consultar NFS-e por chave de acesso

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It transparently states this is a read-only consultation and specifies return behavior ('Retorna todos os dados da nota'). It also discloses an input tolerance: the key is accepted with or without spaces.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying meaningful information. The action and key criteria are front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restating of structured fields.

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 simple one-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, how the input may be formatted, and what the caller gets back. The main gap is not mentioning alternatives explicitly, but the key-based lookup is self-evident.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds the valuable normalization detail that the key can include or omit spaces, which improves an agent's ability to format the input correctly.

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 states it queries an NFS-e by access key, a specific verb plus resource and identifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nfse_consultar_por_numero and nfse_consultar_por_id_dps, which use different lookup criteria.

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 phrase 'Metodo mais confiavel' implies this should be preferred when the access key is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use alternative lookup methods such as por_numero or por_id_dps. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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