consultar_nfse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Consulta' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention possible errors, response format, or other behavioral traits. It adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and key parameter without any fluff, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. It tells the agent what the tool does and how to identify the target NFS-e, but it does not explain what 'details' will be returned or any error behavior. The lack of an output schema means the description could have elaborated on return values, but the simplicity of the lookup partially compensates.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', which is already described as 'ID da NFS-e na Nuvem Fiscal'. The description repeats this by saying 'pelo ID' but does not add additional meaning or usage details. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Consulta') and its resource ('detalhes de uma NFS-e específica'), and explicitly identifies the lookup key ('pelo ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'listar_nfse' (which lists multiple) and 'emitir_nfse' (which creates NFS-e).

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 the tool should be used when you need details of a specific NFS-e identified by its ID, and there is a sibling tool 'listar_nfse' likely for broader queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear but not explicit.

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