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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'Grátis' (free) and lists return fields, but it does not explicitly indicate that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. For an agent assessing safety, the lack of an explicit 'does not modify data' or 'read-only' statement is a significant gap. It also does not mention rate limits, authentication, or any side effects.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Busca compras públicas do PNCP por termo'), then adds a key behavioral trait ('Grátis'), and finally lists the return fields. There is no waste or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it well-structured and concise.

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 description covers the source (PNCP), the operation (search by term), and the return fields, which are the core elements. However, it does not mention pagination, how to retrieve more results, or explain the role of the 'limite' parameter beyond the schema. It also lacks guidance on how this tool relates to siblings like 'compra' or 'edital_markdown'. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail on the result structure would enhance completeness, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (q, uf, limite, abertas) are already documented with descriptions in the input schema. The description adds the concept of 'por termo' (by term) which relates to q, but does not deepen the meaning of uf, limite, or abertas beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already carries the burden, a 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 states a specific verb ('Busca' = searches) and a specific resource ('compras públicas do PNCP'), making the core purpose clear. It also lists the return fields (objeto, órgão, UF, modalidade, id), which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'compra' or 'edital_markdown', which could also be used for procurement-related lookups, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when to use it (when searching by term) and notes it is free, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no comparison to siblings or exclusion criteria. The usage context is inferred from the description rather than clearly stated, earning a middle score.

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