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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by explaining that it includes notices that have already closed or been taken offline, and that it operates on the platform's own archive. This is useful context that is not present in the annotations. No contradiction is observed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and quickly explains the difference from the live tool. No unnecessary words are used, and it is appropriately sized for a query tool.

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?

While the description effectively conveys the core use case and differentiates from siblings, it lacks details on output format, pagination, and some filters (e.g., value ranges). Since there is no output schema, the description could have better described the return shape, but it is adequate for a read-only tool with annotations covering safety.

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 description mentions several filter dimensions (termo, uf, modalidade, situacao, desde/ate) but omits others like pagina, tam_pagina, valor_min, and valor_max. Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by explaining some parameters conceptually, but it is not comprehensive for all 10 parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: it is a historical archive of public procurement notices (licitações), and it explicitly contrasts itself with pncp_buscar (live query). This gives a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('arquivo histórico de licitações'), and distinguishes it from a sibling tool.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Diferente da pncp_buscar (consulta ao vivo), aqui a base é o arquivo próprio, útil pra histórico e séries.' This tells the user when to use this tool (for historical data) versus the alternative (live queries), and even notes it is useful for historical and series analysis.

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