Consultar NFS-e por Id do DPS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the lookup action; it does not mention whether this operation is read-only (likely, given the name), whether any authentication or authorization is required, what the response format will be, or any error conditions. As a typical query tool, it's likely safe, but the lack of any behavioral detail beyond the action is a significant gap.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes an example format. It is minimal but complete for the purpose it serves. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter format. However, it lacks any indication of what the return value will be (e.g., full NFS-e details, an object, a reference), and does not mention any prerequisites or side effects. Given the operation's simplicity, the description is nearly sufficient, but the lack of return-content guidance makes it slightly under-specified.

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 100%: the single parameter 'idDps' is described as 'Id do DPS'. The description adds a concrete example ('DPS1100023...') which clarifies the expected format. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the description provides minor added value in the formatting example, but nothing more. This is a baseline 3.

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 the specific verb ('Consulta'), the resource ('uma NFS-e'), and the unique identifier ('pelo Id do DPS'), including an example. This distinguishes it from siblings like nfse_consultar_por_chave or nfse_consultar_por_numero, which target different identifiers. Even without reading the schema, an agent knows what this tool does and how it differs from other lookup tools.

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 implies the primary use case: fetching a specific NFS-e by its DPS id. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., consulting by chave or numero), nor when not to use it. The sibling tool names imply the different identification methods, but the description offers no guidance on selection among them. This is a clear but not explicit usage context.

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