pncp_obter_fontes_orcamentarias_por_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: this is a public-data read operation ('Consulta dados públicos'). That is meaningful context. However, it adds nothing about response shape, error behavior, or the difference between the 'normalizado' and 'original' response formats.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and appends the exact endpoint. Every element earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 get-by-id endpoint the essentials are present: what it fetches, the endpoint, and both parameters are covered between description and schema. But there is no output schema and no description of the returned record, no guidance on choosing between 'normalizado' and 'original', and no pointer to the list sibling for ID discovery.

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 coverage is only 50%: the `formato` parameter is well documented in the schema with enum values and a default, while `id` has no schema description. The description partially compensates by showing the path template /v1/fontes-orcamentarias/{id}, which clarifies that `id` identifies the budget-source record, but it does not explain where such IDs come from or their constraints.

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 specific verb ('Consulta'/'obter registro') and resource ('fontes orçamentárias'), and pins the operation to a concrete endpoint (/v1/fontes-orcamentarias/{id}). It clearly indicates a single-record fetch by ID, which distinguishes it from the listing sibling `pncp_listar_fontes_orcamentarias`, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The 'por id' pattern implies the agent should call it when it already has a budget-source ID, and that `pncp_listar_fontes_orcamentarias` is the alternative for browsing, but this is left entirely to inference rather than stated.

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