pncp_listar_modalidades

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys that the data is public and the operation is a consulta/listar, but it does not disclose the response shape, pagination behavior, or how irp/statusAtivo affect the results.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('consulta dados públicos...') and then gives the exact path and action. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented boolean parameters, the description is too thin: it does not explain the meaning of the optional filters or the nature of the returned list. An agent can make a bare call but cannot confidently use the filtering options.

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 only 33% and the description adds no parameter meaning. irp and statusAtivo remain unexplained, and the description only repeats the endpoint instead of compensating for the low coverage.

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 clear action ('consulta dados públicos' and 'ação listar registros') and a clear resource ('modalidades de contratação') with the exact endpoint /v1/modalidades. It distinguishes from 'obter...por_id' siblings by indicating this is a list operation, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast.

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 about when to use this tool instead of pncp_obter_modalidades_por_id or other list tools. The only implicit signal is the 'listar' action and path, so the agent must infer the use case.

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