pncp_obter_ata_completa

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, but it only says 'consulta' and 'públicos', which implies a read-only, non-sensitive operation. It does not explain whether the response aggregates multiple resource types, is paginated, can be large, or requires all four identifiers to resolve a valid ata.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is economical, though its brevity contributes to the lack of specificity rather than solving it.

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 four required parameters, no annotations, and a very large sibling family, this one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke it confidently. The presence of an output schema helps with return shape, but the missing parameter semantics, behavioral detail, and sibling differentiation leave critical decisions to inference.

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%, so the description needed to explain cnpj, ano, sequencial_contratacao, and sequencial_ata, but it does not. The parameter names are partly self-explanatory and the phrase 'relacionados a uma ata PNCP' provides domain context, yet no actual semantic detail about how the identifiers combine is given.

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?

A description identifies a query operation and ties it to a PNCP ata, but 'recursos públicos' is vague and does not clarify that this is the complete-ata endpoint or which specific resources are included. It also does not distinguish the tool from the many sibling ata-related endpoints, such as pncp_obter_orgaos_compras_atas_arquivos_por_* or pncp_obter_orgaos_compras_atas_contratos_por_*.

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 sibling alternatives. The description neither states the intended use case, such as retrieving all related data for one ata, nor excludes more targeted endpoints like ata files, contracts, participants, or history.

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