br__consult_nfse_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly identifies the tool as read-only and requiring no confirmation, adding safety context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements beyond schema, or error behavior. The '[Unverified]' note adds uncertainty.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two lines plus an informative note. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with primary purpose.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose and safety traits. However, it omits contextual details like error conditions or environment handling for the optional tp_amb parameter.

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 description does not need to add parameter details. It only reiterates the ch_nfse key, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Consultar o status de uma NFS-e pelo chave de acesso (chNFSe)', specifying verb (consult), resource (status of NFS-e), and identifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that cancel, generate, or submit invoices.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Read-only, não requer confirmação', indicating safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like br__consult_sefaz_status or 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.