Consultar NFS-e por numero/serie (DPS)

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It conveys a read-only lookup scoped to the configured provider, but it does not describe response format, error/not-found behavior, or any side effects. For a simple query operation this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler: the main lookup mechanism comes first and the routing observation follows. Every clause contributes either the object of the query or a usage boundary.

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 two-parameter read operation, the description covers the lookup key, the configured-provider scope, and the relevant alternative for portal-issued notes. It does not state the return shape or error behavior, and there is no output schema, but these are minor gaps for this straightforward query.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, including the default for 'serie', so schema coverage is 100%. The description's reference to 'numero do DPS (e serie)' restates that coverage without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Consulta') with the resource ('NFS-e') and a precise lookup key ('numero do DPS (e serie) do prestador configurado'). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling nfse_consultar_por_chave by explicitly scoping it to DPS number/series lookup.

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 states when the tool is appropriate (querying by DPS number/series for the configured provider) and gives an explicit exclusion: for notas emitidas pelo portal, prefer nfse_consultar_por_chave. This routes an agent to the right sibling without requiring schema inspection.

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