consultar_cfop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly states offline behavior (lê dicionário em memória) and no connection required, plus parameter constraints and group definitions. No contradictions.

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 (5-6 sentences) with clear section headers like 'Purpose', 'Quando usar', 'Comportamento', 'Formato', and 'Grupos'. Front-loaded with purpose, no fluff.

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 simple parameter (one required string) and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter format, and grouped codes. It is fully adequate for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema already has a description (100% coverage) for the 'cfop' parameter, but the description adds value by explaining the 4-digit numeric format with examples and mapping to groups (entradas/saídas). This enriches agent understanding beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as consulting CFOP (Código Fiscal de Operações e Prestações) and explains its purpose for NF-e, SPED, and accounting. It distinguishes from sibling tools like consultar_ncm or consultar_cest by specifying the exact tax code and use case.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('ao emitir nota fiscal, classificar entradas/saídas ou analisar obrigações acessórias'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the sibling set is diverse.

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