simular_impacto_rota

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals one behavioral trait: UFs are resolved automatically via BrasilAPI. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or if it has rate limits, error behavior, or prerequisites like CNPJ validity. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

Description is a single sentence – concise and front-loaded. No superfluous words. However, it could afford to be slightly longer to cover parameter details and usage guidance without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema or annotations, and a moderately complex tool (external API call, tax impact calculation), the description is incomplete. It does not explain output structure, error handling, or what 'impacto tributário' means operationally. The agent lacks key information for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It mentions CNPJs and implicitly valorFrete but does not explain CNPJ format (14 digits), that valorFrete can be number or string with decimal, or that the tool automatically resolves UFs (already stated). The added value beyond schema is minimal.

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?

Description clearly states it simulates tax impact of a freight route using origin/destination CNPJs. The verb 'simula' and resource 'rota de frete' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'calcular_carga_tributaria_frete', leaving ambiguity about when to choose this one.

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?

Description implies use for tax impact simulation given CNPJs and freight value. It provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., 'calcular_carga_tributaria_frete' for different scenarios). Usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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