calcular_carga_tributaria_frete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the calculation and comparison but does not disclose behavioral details such as idempotency, data persistence, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is not contradictory 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?

A single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core action. No redundant words. Every part contributes to the 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not specify the return format (e.g., numeric value, comparison table), nor does it explain how input parameters like UF or NCM affect the calculation. The tool's complexity demands more context.

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 0%, yet the description only mentions 'ano' and the regime comparison. It does not explain 'valorFrete', 'ufOrigem', 'ufDestino', or the optional 'ncm' parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 calculates the tax burden of freight, specifying the year range (2026–2033) and the comparison between new and old tax regimes. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on freight tax calculation, not schedules, company lists, or route simulations.

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 freight tax calculation but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the siblings or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.

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