olist_nota_servico_consultar

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states the endpoint and provides a docs link. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, permission requirements, or the return format. The term 'Consultar' implies a read operation but this is not explicit.

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 short, consisting of a single sentence and a documentation link. It is front-loaded with the purpose and wastes no words, but the extreme brevity leaves out important context, preventing a perfect score.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, any preconditions, or how this consult operation relates to other service-note tools. The documentation link is helpful but the description should be more self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, as both 'id' and 'enviarEmail' have descriptive text. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 the action 'Consultar' (query) and the resource 'NFS-e' (service invoice), and identifies the specific API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'olist_nota_servico_obter' or 'olist_notas_servico_pesquisa', so it lacks strong sibling distinction.

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 such as 'olist_nota_servico_obter' or 'olist_notas_servico_pesquisa'. There is no mention of prerequisites, contextual triggers, 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.