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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: search is partial and accent-insensitive for particular fields, the source does not publish contract monetary values, results mix subespécies, and results are truncated with a warning when over the limit. These caveats are exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 dense but well structured, front-loading the core search capability, then return shape, then caveats, and finally the routing to the detail tool. Every sentence adds necessary operational information, with no filler or repetition.

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 complex search tool with 7 optional filters, mixed record types, truncation, and a follow-up detail tool, the description covers all relevant context: search semantics, output fields, missing monetary values, subespécie distinction, limite behavior, and how to proceed for more detail. Nothing essential is left to inference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value by clarifying that fornecedor, objeto, and numero use partial, accent-insensitive search. It also reinforces the limite default/max behavior and the mão de obra filter. It does not add per-parameter detail for every field, but the added semantics are meaningful.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Busca contratos administrativos do Senado por fornecedor, CNPJ, ano, número, objeto ou mão de obra', and specifies the return shape. It is highly understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like senado_contratacoes_lista or senado_empresas_contratadas, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance ('não gaste chamadas procurando valor') and routes to the correct follow-up tool ('Use o id retornado em senado_contratacao_detalhe para itens, pagamentos, garantias ou aditivos'). This is practical, actionable context that tells an agent where this tool fits and where to go next.

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