validate_nfe_full

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 operations (parsing, check digit, CNPJ status) and output format, but does not mention side effects like network calls, authentication needs, or error handling. Adds some value but lacks depth.

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?

Three sentences in Portuguese, front-loaded with purpose then steps, input, and output. Every sentence adds value with no waste. Efficient and well-structured.

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 has one parameter, an output schema, and performs multiple validations, the description covers input, steps, and output format. It does not mention error cases or dependencies, but the output schema likely handles return details. Nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that xml_path is a local XML file path, which adds meaning beyond the schema name. However, it does not specify path format, file existence requirements, or error behavior. Baseline 3 with marginal compensation.

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 performs consolidated validation of an NFe (Brazilian electronic invoice) from XML, listing three specific validation steps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like validar_chave_nfe (key-only) and parse_nfe_xml (parsing-only) by being comprehensive.

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 full validation versus specific checks, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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