pncp_obter_criterios_julgamentos_por_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a public-data read and that it retrieves a single record, which is reasonably transparent. However, it does not mention response format, error behavior, or whether authentication is required, leaving some ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the resource and the exact action in one sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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 public get-by-id endpoint, the description is minimally viable: it states the resource and path. But it lacks usage guidance, parameter explanation, and any sense of the expected return payload, so an agent would likely need to inspect the schema or sibling names to be fully confident.

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?

Only 50% of the schema properties have descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. The 'id' parameter is left to inference, though the endpoint hint partially compensates. The 'formato' parameter is already described in the schema, so the description contributes no extra value here.

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 specifies the operation ('Consulta dados públicos de critérios de julgamento') and identifies the exact resource path with an id placeholder. This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like pncp_listar_criterios_julgamentos and other lookup tools.

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 versus the many sibling tools. The endpoint path implies a get-by-id operation, but the description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or contexts where this tool should be preferred.

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