consultar_obras_pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small operational hint about checking the last HTTP modification to assess currency, which is useful context, but it does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or other response dynamics.

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 very short with no filler; the main purpose is front-loaded and the freshness-check instruction is compact. However, the phrase 'confira a última modificação HTTP' is somewhat cryptic and could have been clearer, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description leaves out usage guidance and parameter semantics entirely. An agent would need to infer the meaning of 'objeto', how pagination works with limite/deslocamento, and whether municipio is required for meaningful results, so the description is not complete enough for reliable 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 provides no information about limite, objeto, municipio, or deslocamento. The parameter names and defaults are arguably self-explanatory, but the description itself adds zero meaning beyond the schema, which fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Pesquisa obras municipais' (searches municipal works). This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like consultar_licitacoes_pr and consultar_acordaos_pr, though it does not explicitly name any alternative or contrast its scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, and it does not mention any alternative. The only usage hint is to check HTTP modification data for freshness, but that is about evaluating output recency, not about selecting this tool over others.

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