ressalvas_setoriais

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so reasonably: it states that the tool 'Calcula as tabelas publicadas em lei', warns that a missing sector does not mean DAS covers its burden, and explicitly disclaims tax-advisory scope. It does not mention potential errors or output limits, but the output schema helps fill that 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 compact and front-loads the core action, then adds brief scope, legal-basis, and disclaimer sentences. Each sentence adds information, though the final disclaimer is slightly long relative to the rest.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers invocation behavior, legal calculation basis, and a key caveat about DAS coverage. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly, though a more explicit allowed-value list for 'setor' would raise this further.

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 effectively explains the optional 'setor' parameter by listing example sector values and stating that omitting the argument lists registered sectors. It does not define exact accepted string formats, but the examples and default behavior are enough for a single optional parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista as ressalvas de um setor' and enumerates the affected sectors such as bebidas alcoólicas, medicamentos, and combustíveis. It clearly conveys the tool's domain, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like carga_fora_do_das.

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?

It gives a clear scope of use: sectors under special PIS/COFINS or ICMS regimes, and explains the no-argument behavior ('Sem argumento, lista os setores registrados'). It also sets an exclusion by noting it is not tax advisory, but it does not refer to any alternative tool.

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