pncp_obter_modos_disputas_por_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the data is 'públicos' (public) and the action is a query, which implies read-only access without authentication, but it discloses nothing about the response shape, record fields, error behavior on a nonexistent ID, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and ends with the concrete API path. Every element earns its place, though it reads slightly like a technical endpoint note rather than agent-facing prose.

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 with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it conveys public read access, the resource, and the route. However, it omits what a 'modo de disputa' record contains, how an agent obtains a valid ID (e.g., via the list sibling), and any error/response behavior. These gaps are modest for such a simple fetch but still present.

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 50%: the 'formato' parameter is already documented in the schema with a clear enum, while 'id' has no schema description. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics, but 'id' is made self-evident by the tool name ('por_id') and the path placeholder {id}. The combination of schema, name, and path adequately compensates for the description's silence.

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 specific verb ('Consulta'/'obter') and resource ('modos de disputa'), and pinpoints the REST path /v1/modos-disputas/{id}, making the get-by-id intent unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool (pncp_listar_modos_disputas) through the path's {id} placeholder, though it never explicitly names that alternative.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no statement like 'use this when you have a specific mode-of-dispute ID' nor any mention that pncp_listar_modos_disputas should be used to enumerate records or discover IDs. The usage context is only implied by the name and path.

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