br__consult_cte_sefaz_status

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

The description declares the tool is read-only, explains that endpoint_override is required because no endpoint is embedded, and describes the return format (cStat/xMotivo) and the significance of cStat=107. This is good transparency for a tool with no annotations, though error handling or rate limits are not mentioned.

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 concise, consisting of two main sentences plus a helpful parenthetical note. It front-loads the purpose and immediately adds critical usage context about endpoint_override.

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 5 parameters, complete schema descriptions, and an output schema that likely covers return structure, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the mandatory parameter and the return code. However, it could be improved by including a brief note on error scenarios or the expected behavior when the service is down.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that endpoint_override is mandatory and why, and by noting the return pattern. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions for other parameters.

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 consults the availability of the SEFAZ CT-e webservice using CTeStatusServicoV4. The tool name also indicates CT-e, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similar sibling br__consult_sefaz_status (likely for NF-e).

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 it is read-only and does not require confirmation, and that endpoint_override is mandatory. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like br__consult_sefaz_status or br__consult_cte, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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