olist_nota_fiscal_obter_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only provides the endpoint and documentation URL, but does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a URL), any required permissions, error behavior, or whether the link is temporary. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The endpoint and documentation link add useful technical context without being verbose. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response looks like (e.g., a link) or how the link should be used. The description plus schema provide only a bare minimum, lacking essential contextual details like return value and typical usage scenarios.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the 'id' parameter has a clear description ('Número de identificação da nota fiscal na Olist'). The description adds no additional parameter context, but per guidelines, the schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Obter Link da Nota Fiscal' (Get Invoice Link), a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like olist_nota_fiscal_obter (get invoice) and olist_nota_fiscal_obter_xml (get XML) by focusing on obtaining the link. However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for retrieving a link specifically, nor does it exclude cases where one should use olist_nota_fiscal_obter or olist_nota_fiscal_obter_xml instead. The usage context is entirely implied.

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