compras_consultar_indicadores_consolidados

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation on public data ('consulta dados públicos'), but discloses nothing beyond that: no response format, pagination, data volume, or effect of the formato parameter on the output.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. However, it is mildly redundant: 'Consulta... indicadores' repeats the verb in 'ação consultar indicadores', and the endpoint path largely duplicates the function's action name. Acceptable size but not tight.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the agent will receive. It does not describe what 'indicadores consolidados' contains, what the normalized versus original payloads look like, or how this relates to the by-period indicator sibling. The call itself is trivially simple (no required params), but the response is a complete unknown.

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 100%: the single formato parameter is fully documented in the schema with its enum ('normalizado'/'original') and default value. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Consulta dados públicos de indicadores de compras públicas') and a specific action ('ação consultar indicadores consolidados') with its endpoint path. The word 'consolidados' helps distinguish it from the sibling compras_listar_modulo_indicadores_2_consultar_indicadores_por_periodo, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a closely related sibling (compras_listar_modulo_indicadores_2_consultar_indicadores_por_periodo) and yet the description provides no trigger conditions, exclusions, or context about what kind of indicator query this suits.

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