consultar_base_pr

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: clarifies that 'ano seleciona o arquivo publicado, não filtra datas dos registros' (a genuine semantic trap), specifies limite range 1–100, states deslocamento pages results with no additional ordering, discloses the response envelope (fonte, data de obtenção, total, próximo deslocamento), and notes one-hour default caching. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Approximately 80 words covering purpose, filter semantics, sibling routing, five parameter behaviors, response contents, and caching. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place — density is justified by the 0% schema coverage and six parameters.

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?

Complete for a six-parameter read tool with zero schema descriptions: all parameters explained, edge cases clarified, cache disclosed, response envelope described even though an output schema exists, and a sibling reference for advanced needs. Nothing an agent requires to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden and fully compensates: filtros (substrings, AND, case/accent-insensitive), texto (searches any column), ano (file selection, not record filtering), limite (bounds), deslocamento (pagination behavior). Only 'base' is left to its self-documenting enum, which is acceptable.

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?

Starts with 'Consulta CSV oficial' — a specific verb (consultar) plus resource (official CSV dataset). The description goes on to define exact query semantics (substring filters, AND combination, accent/case insensitivity) that distinguish it from domain-specific siblings like consultar_licitacoes_pr and consultar_obras_pr. The 'base' enum further scopes which datasets it covers.

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 routes the agent to sibling descrever_base_pr when exact column names are needed ('Use descrever_base_pr para nomes exatos das colunas'). The generic-CSV positioning provides clear context relative to the specialized consultar_*_pr tools, though it never explicitly states when not to use those alternatives, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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