pncp_obter_contratacao_completa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only indicates a read operation but does not disclose whether the response aggregates all public resources related to the contracting, how the data is structured, or whether pagination or other constraints apply. 'Consulta' implies a read, but little else.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the operation is front-loaded. However, the brevity contributes to the vagueness; it reads as under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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, which reduces the need to document return values, the description still fails to explain what 'completa' adds over the many resource-specific sibling endpoints or what 'recursos públicos' actually includes. With no annotations and a large, confusing sibling family, this is not enough context for reliable selection and 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%, so the description needed to explain the role and format of cnpj, ano, and sequencial_contratacao. It only says the tool relates to 'uma contratação PNCP,' which weakly implies the key triple, but it does not explain formats, field relationships, or how the sequential number is obtained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare parameter names.

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 query operation ('Consulta') and a resource ('recursos públicos relacionados a uma contratação PNCP'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'recursos públicos' is ambiguous—it could mean public files, public data, or public funds—and the description does nothing to distinguish this endpoint from the many siblings that also retrieve PNCP contracting-related resources by cnpj/ano/sequencial.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this 'complete' endpoint should be preferred over resource-specific siblings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. An agent gets no routing support in a large family of similar PNCP endpoints.

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