Br Consult Sefaz Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only — não requer confirmação' and describes the result shape (`cStat`/`xMotivo`) plus the success condition (`cStat=107`), with an `[Unverified]` caveat. This gives an agent clear expectations about safety and output meaning.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is first, the read-only behavior follows, and the output interpretation is stated last; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only status-check tool, the description is complete: purpose, safety profile, output format, and a success interpretation are all present. The schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, so no critical operational detail is 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so it already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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') and a concrete resource ('webservice SEFAZ (`NFeStatusServico4`)'), which identifies exactly what the tool checks. It differentiates from sibling status tools by naming the NFe service, unlike br__consult_nfse_status or br__consult_cte_sefaz_status.

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?

It provides clear context: use this when you need to check NFe SEFAZ webservice availability, and it is read-only so no confirmation is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the NFeStatusServico4 reference makes the intended scope unambiguous.

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