pncp_obter_catalogos_por_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation is a public-data query, which implies read-only and no auth requirement. It does not mention response format, error behavior, or rate limits, but for a simple public GET this is partially transparent rather than misleading.

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 that front-loads the purpose and immediately supplies the endpoint path. There is no filler or redundant information; every part contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple 2-parameter GET endpoint, the description and schema are probably enough to invoke the tool correctly. Still, there is no output schema, no guidance on alternatives, and no note about what the returned catalog record contains, so the contextual picture is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description adds meaning to 'id' by embedding it in the endpoint path, clarifying that it identifies the catalog record. The optional 'formato' parameter is already well described in the schema with an enum and default value. Schema coverage is only 50%, but the path context partially compensates for the lack of an 'id' description.

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 clearly states the operation ('consulta'), the resource ('dados públicos de catálogos de itens'), and the scope ('obter registro no caminho /v1/catalogos/{id}'), which indicates a single-record retrieval by ID. It does not explicitly name a sibling like pncp_listar_catalogos, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool should be used when a single catalog record is needed by ID, especially through the '/v1/catalogos/{id}' path. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any alternative tools.

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