consultar_status_sefaz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool checks if the webservice is 'operacional', but does not mention rate limits, caching, or what happens on invalid UF input. The description is straightforward but not rich in behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences, each contributing meaningful information: the first defines the action and resource, the second explains the utility. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the primary use case (diagnosing transmission failures) and the tool's scope (per state). However, absence of annotations means a slightly richer description of behavior (e.g., online/offline indication, timeouts) would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'uf', with both schema and description providing similar details (2-letter state code, example values). The description adds no new semantic depth beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool checks the current operational status of a Brazilian state's SEFAZ webservice for NFe issuance. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze SPED, CNPJ compliance, or other tax-related services.

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 implies use for diagnosing NFe transmission failures ('Útil para diagnosticar falhas de transmissão de notas fiscais'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative tools like 'consultar_nfe' for specific NFe queries. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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