verificar_documento

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the API only supports per-code queries and each code costs one API request. It does not spell out the return shape or error behavior, but the read-only/query nature is conveyed by 'só consulta por código.'

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 cover purpose, API constraint, and intended use. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant constraints are front-loaded.

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 single-optional-parameter setup tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the API limitation, request cost, and intended use. The only minor omission is an explicit description of the return format, which is only implied by 'Confere quais códigos ... existem.'

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 documents the codigos array and the default list, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by linking the parameter to request cost and to the SIENGE_DOCUMENTO_PADRAO outcome, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 ('Confere') and a specific resource ('códigos de tipo de documento no Sienge'), with concrete examples (NF, NFE, CF, REC). It also distinguishes the tool from listar_* siblings by stating that the API has no listing endpoint, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly anchors the tool to setup: 'Use no setup para definir SIENGE_DOCUMENTO_PADRAO.' It also warns that there is no list endpoint and each tested code consumes a request, which implies a narrow test-a-few-codes use case. It does not name an alternative tool or a broader when-not condition, so it stops short of a full 5.

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