olist_nota_fiscal_obter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'obter' (get) and provides an endpoint and a documentation link, without mentioning read-only behavior, error handling, authentication, or output format. The read operation is implicit from the verb but not explicitly disclosed.

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 very concise with few words and no verbosity. It front-loads the main action but the 'Endpoint API V2' line is largely redundant with the tool name, and the documentation link is helpful but not a substitute for a structured description. Overall efficient, though not well-structured.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks essential context such as return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites. The documentation link outsources information that should be in the description, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly without external help.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('Número de identificação da nota fiscal na Olist'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 states the tool obtains a Nota Fiscal (invoice) via API 2.0, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like olist_nota_fiscal_obter_xml or olist_nota_fiscal_obter_link, though the tool name and 'obter' hint at a generic retrieval operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it retrieves a single invoice by ID, nor does it suggest using olist_notas_fiscais_pesquisa for searching or olist_nota_fiscal_obter_xml for XML retrieval. The only context is an external documentation link.

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