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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds a useful behavioral note ('Grátis') and describes the returned content, but it does not state read-only behavior, error handling, rate limits, or output format explicitly.

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 compact single sentence with the main output stated first and the cost note appended. It is efficient, though the meaning of 'ficha' could be more explicit.

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 simple one-id retrieval tool, the description is mostly adequate: it says what is returned and that it is free. However, without an output schema, it leaves the exact structure of the ficha and document list underspecified, and it does not mention how the id should be obtained beyond the schema note.

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 description coverage is 100%: id is documented as a number and as coming from the search, so the schema does the work. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (compra) and the output components (ficha, document list with extracted text and price), making the purpose clear even though the verb is implicit. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as edital_markdown or vigiar_compra, so it does not reach 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only directional hint, 'vem da busca' in the schema's id parameter, is not in the description and does not address sibling tools or preconditions.

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