pncp_obter_contrato_completo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only indicates a read-only query ('Consulta') and says nothing about what the returned 'recursos públicos' include, whether the full contract object is returned, any authorization requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. This adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 filler, which is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than effectively informative, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity and does not earn its place as a useful definition.

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?

Given three required parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling set with very similar names, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify how the parameters map to a contract, what data will be returned, or how this tool differs from related tools like pncp_obter_contratacao_completa or pncp_obter_orgaos_contratos_por_cnpj_ano_sequencial.

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% and the description never references cnpj, ano, or sequencial_contrato or explains how they identify the contract. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, providing no additional semantic context.

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 verb (Consulta) and a general object (recursos públicos relacionados a um contrato PNCP), which conveys a read/query action. However, 'recursos públicos' is ambiguous and does not make clear this is the complete-contract retrieval tool, nor does it distinguish it from siblings like pncp_obter_orgaos_contratos_por_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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling contract-related tools. The description mentions no alternatives, exclusions, or distinguishing conditions, leaving an agent to guess which of the numerous overlapping PNCP tools is appropriate.

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