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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that records are 'vigentes' (active) and optionally filtered by CNPJ. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, output format, or data-scope limitations, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded Portuguese sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: the resource type, temporal scope, optional filter, and purpose.

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 read-only list operation with strong annotations, the description provides the essential context: active price-registration records in a period, optionally filtered by agency. It could additionally clarify pagination and differentiate from siblings, but it is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining that the period maps to the required date range and that 'órgão' corresponds to the cnpj parameter. It does not elaborate on pagina/tamanho_pagina or requiredness, though those are partly inferable from parameter names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' and clearly identifies the resource: 'atas de registro de preços vigentes num período', with an optional filter by 'órgão (CNPJ)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pncp_contratos and pncp_oportunidades.

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 clear context: the tool lists currently valid price registration agreements within a period and can be filtered by agency CNPJ. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is easily inferred.

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