consultar_dados_pit_pr

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly avoids repeating them. It adds valuable behavioral context: the tool does not download the entire annual ZIP, it paginates records, returns total and provenance, and requires the two-step arquivo workflow.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, then proceeds to essential usage details. Each sentence adds actionable information, though bullet points or explicit parameter labels could improve scannability.

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 7-parameter tool with no schema parameter descriptions, the description covers the discovery workflow, theme list, filter semantics, and pagination/provenance behavior. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed; minor ambiguities like exact limite constraints and the meaning of 'Relacionamentos' remain.

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 0% schema description coverage, the text compensates by documenting the tema enum, how to obtain codigo_municipio, the arquivo null-then-exact-name workflow, and filtros syntax. Limite and deslocamento are only implied by 'Pagina registros encontrados', so not every parameter is explicitly mapped.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Consulta ... do PIT') and enumerates the covered data types: receitas, despesas, contratos, convênios, licitações, obras, diárias e combustível. It makes the tool's scope clear, but it does not explicitly contrast it with overlapping siblings such as consultar_licitacoes_pr or consultar_obras_pr.

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 concrete procedural guidance: find codigo_municipio in listar_arquivos_zip_pr names, omit arquivo first to list XMLs, then supply the exact filename, and use XML-attribute filters combined by AND. However, it never states when to prefer this generic tool over specialized siblings or provides explicit exclusion conditions.

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