consultar_aliquota_icms

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses offline behavior (calculates from in-memory tables, no connection required) and a notable limitation. Does not detail error handling or response format, but output schema covers the latter. Good disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Description is structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, behavior, note, parameters). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the main action and context.

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 2 required parameters with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, limitations, and parameter format. Lacks explicit edge-case or error handling details, but overall sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by specifying that UF acronyms must be uppercase (e.g., 'SP', 'MG', 'RJ'), which is not in the schema descriptions. This provides practical formatting guidance.

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?

Description clearly states it consults ICMS rates for interstate operations between taxpayers, with explicit purpose of calculating DIFAL and applicable interstate rate for NF-e issuance, referencing specific legislation (EC 87/2015, Res. SF 22/1989). It distinguishes from siblings like consultar_aliquota_importacao by its focus on interstate ICMS.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when issuing interstate NF-e, calculating DIFAL, or verifying tax burden between states. Also notes a limitation (not covering 4% rate for imported goods), but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives. Still clear context.

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