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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context: the source list, freshness (checked every 6 hours), ordering (most relevant first), returned fields (agency, city, modality, opening date, values, link), and that access is free. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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?

Front-loaded with the key scope and filtering guidance, but the long parenthetical source list makes the first sentence dense. The information is useful but could be slightly tighter without losing essential context.

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?

Covers what the tool returns, source coverage, freshness, filtering, and the PNCP alternative, which is substantial for a tool with no output schema. It stops short of explaining pagination limits or error behavior, but the schema covers `pagina` and the description is otherwise complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description reiterates the `abertas` filter but adds little meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: tenders reported to audit courts or own portals that are not on PNCP, and enumerates the covered sources. Clearly distinguishes itself from PNCP-based siblings like search_tenders by explaining that tenders also on PNCP come through `/api/busca`.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (non-PNCP sources) versus the PNCP endpoint, and documents the `abertas=1` filter for tenders opening today or later. Also notes the `Accept: text/html` behavior for opening the Outside PNCP tab, which is actionable routing information.

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