pncp_obter_modalidade_criterio_julgamento_por_modalidadeid_criteriojulgamentoid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a public read-only consultation via 'Consulta dados públicos' and 'obter'. However, it does not mention response format, potential errors, authentication needs, or whether the result is normalized/original, which would be useful context.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before giving the path. It is slightly repetitive because 'ação obter modalidade criterio julgamento' largely restates the verb and resource, but overall it is compact and free of filler.

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 description identifies the resource and path, which is a reasonable minimum. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps about what the returned data contains, how the two IDs relate, and how formato affects the response.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented modalidadeId and criterioJulgamentoId parameters. It does not explain their meaning or expected values, only echoing them in the URL path. The formato parameter is documented in the schema but not addressed in the 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 states a specific action ('Consulta dados públicos') and a specific resource ('modalidades e critérios de julgamento'), and gives the exact endpoint path with both ID placeholders. It is clear about what the tool operates on, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pncp_listar_modalidade_criterio_julgamento.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a single specific pair by IDs, nor does it contrast with list endpoints or other get-by-id tools.

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