pncp_obter_orgaos_id_por_orgaoid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does convey that this is a read-only lookup of public data ('Consulta dados públicos'), which is helpful. It does not describe response characteristics, error behavior, or potential rate limits, leaving some behavioral details implicit.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The phrase 'ação consultar ente no caminho' is slightly awkward and redundant, but overall there is no excessive padding.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description plus schema gives a workable but thin picture. An agent learns the endpoint and parameters, but the response shape, whether units are included, and how to distinguish this tool from many related sibling tools remain largely implicit.

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?

The schema documents 'formato' with its enum, default, and description, but leaves 'orgaoId' undocumented. The description adds some meaning by showing that 'orgaoId' is the path parameter in /v1/orgaos/id/{orgaoId}, but it does not add detail about the expected value semantics or the meaning of 'formato' beyond what the schema already says.

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 action ('Consulta') and resource ('dados públicos de órgãos e unidades públicas'), and identifies the exact endpoint path /v1/orgaos/id/{orgaoId}. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling CNPJ-based or listing 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?

The endpoint path and tool name imply this should be used when an orgaoId is available. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over pncp_obter_orgaos_por_cnpj or pncp_listar_orgaos, and provides no exclusions.

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