manifestar_nfe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool requires a local certificate, that the certificate is never transmitted (security), and includes a list of events with a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is a state-changing mutation (submitting an event) or discuss error/rate-limit behavior. The provided details are good but not exhaustive.

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 main purpose. Each sentence adds specific information. However, it is a single paragraph and could benefit from better structuring (e.g., bullet points for events). The length is appropriate, but organization could be improved slightly.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 5 required, event-specific behavior), the description covers the main aspects: certificate requirement, event codes, and prerequisite. It does not explicitly state that the tool submits an event to SEFAZ (a state-changing operation), but the output schema likely covers return values. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to use 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining event codes in context, the necessity of justificativa for 210240, and the prerequisite relationship. This extra context beyond the schema's individual field descriptions justifies a score above baseline (3).

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's purpose: manifesting the recipient on an NF-e via NFeRecepcaoEvento. It lists specific event codes and their meanings, and highlights that 'Ciencia' is a prerequisite for obtaining the full XML. This is a unique function among siblings, which include query tools and validators, so it is well-distinguished.

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 provides important usage context: it requires a local digital certificate A1 (never sent to server), lists valid event codes, and notes that 'Ciencia' is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other manifest tools are absent) or when not to use it. The guidance is clear but could be more explicit about usage scenarios.

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