Br Consult Cte Sefaz Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states that the operation is read-only, requires no confirmation, has no embedded/verified endpoint URL, mandates `endpoint_override`, and discloses the return semantics (`cStat`/`xMotivo`) including the `cStat=107` meaning and its `[Unverified]` status. This is far beyond the minimum needed.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose in the first sentence, key behavioral caveat in the second, and return-value interpretation in the third. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant phrases.

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?

Despite having no annotations and five parameters, the description plus a fully documented schema and an output schema provide what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It covers safety, mandatory override, return semantics, and the unverified nature of the endpoint, leaving no critical context missing.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters. The description mostly repeats what the schema says about `endpoint_override` being mandatory, adding no significant new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Consulta a disponibilidade do webservice SEFAZ CT-e' and names the exact operation (`CTeStatusServicoV4`). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `br__consult_sefaz_status` (NF-e status) and `br__consult_cte` (CT-e document 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 makes the usage context clear: use this to check CT-e SEFAZ webservice availability, it is read-only with no confirmation required, and `endpoint_override` is mandatory because no endpoint URL is embedded. It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use it or comparing it to sibling alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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