pncp_obter_orgaos_unidades_por_cnpj_codigounidade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that this is a public-data read operation ('Consulta dados públicos') and shows the HTTP-style path, but it says nothing about response shape, failure behavior, authentication needs, or format expectations. For a read endpoint this is minimal but not dangerously misleading.

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 one short sentence and front-loads the domain ('Consulta dados públicos...') before the specific endpoint. It is concise with no filler, but the phrase 'ação consultar unidade orgao' is awkward and slightly redundant with the path that follows.

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?

This is a very simple GET-like tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description still needs to provide enough context. It gives the path and parameters, yet omits return value shape, CNPJ/unit-code formatting, and any distinction from the sibling list endpoint. An agent could construct the call but would not know what to expect back or when exactly to prefer it.

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% (only 'formato' is documented), so the description must compensate for cnpj and codigoUnidade. The endpoint path does add semantic meaning: cnpj identifies the org and codigoUnidade selects a unit within it. However, it does not state expected formats (masked vs raw CNPJ, numeric vs string unit code), so it only partially compensates for the sparse schema.

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 ('consultar unidade orgao') and resource (public agencies/units) and gives the exact endpoint path /v1/orgaos/{cnpj}/unidades/{codigoUnidade}. This makes it clear it fetches one unit by CNPJ and unit code, and it is implicitly distinguishable from sibling pncp_obter_orgaos_unidades_por_cnpj (which lists units). It loses the fifth point because the wording is awkward and it never explicitly contrasts with sibling 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?

There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The endpoint path implies the intended use (provide a CNPJ and a unit code), but the description does not say 'use this when you need a specific unit' or 'to list units, use pncp_obter_orgaos_unidades_por_cnpj'. This leaves usage to inference.

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