status_sefaz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'verifica' without disclosing any behavioral details such as return format, safety (read-only), or error behavior. For a status-check tool, the absence of any details about what the agent can expect leaves a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core action. It contains no filler and is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the purpose but omits mention of the return value or what 'online' means in practice. While the name and description together imply a status result, the lack of any output specification leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 already provides high coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters ('Sigla da UF' and 'Ambiente'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it does not exceed the schema's baseline contribution.

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 with a specific verb ('Verifica') and resource ('serviço da Sefaz para uma UF'), making it distinct from sibling tools that handle NFe/NFSe operations. It unambiguously identifies the check of Sefaz service availability for a state.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool: to verify service availability for a specific UF. No alternatives are mentioned, but there are no sibling tools with similar functionality, so the context is clear. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but this is not critical given its uniqueness.

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