pncp_obter_parte_envolvida_ata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read/consult operation by starting with 'Consulta dados públicos', which conveys a non-destructive public-data lookup. However, it does not disclose response format, pagination, error behavior, or that the 'formato' parameter can toggle between normalized and original payload. It also does not clarify what 'tipoParteEnvolvida' values are valid, despite a sibling tool pncp_listar_tipos_parte_envolvida existing for that purpose. The behavioral disclosure is minimal beyond the read-only implication.

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, which is concise, but it is front-loaded with a broad enumeration ('compras públicas, itens, resultados e arquivos;') that is not directly relevant to this specific endpoint and could mislead an agent into thinking this tool retrieves all of those resources. The most useful identifying information, the endpoint path, appears after the semicolon. The sentence could be shorter and more precise, e.g., 'Consulta uma parte envolvida de uma ata de compra pública', with the path as a reference.

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 highly specific lookup tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain the relationship between the path parameters, what constitutes a parte envolvida, how to discover valid tipoParteEnvolvida values, or how the formato parameter changes the response. Given the large sibling list, the description is insufficiently complete: an agent would need to rely on the path template and parameter names alone, plus external domain knowledge of PNCP data semantics, to invoke this tool confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter with at least a short label. The description does not add meaning beyond the path structure, which does reveal relationships among parameters (e.g., cnpj belongs to the compra, cnpjOrgao/codUnidade/tipoParteEnvolvida identify the parte envolvida). The 'formato' parameter is mentioned in the schema with enum values and default, and the description says 'Consulta dados públicos' but does not explain the practical effect of normalizado vs original on the response. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 parte envolvida ata) and the exact API path. However, it begins with a broad phrase listing many resources ('compras públicas, itens, resultados e arquivos'), which is generic and does not differentiate this tool from the many siblings. The route itself names the resource precisely, so an agent can infer that this fetches a specific involved party (parte envolvida) associated with a procurement ata. It lacks a plain-language statement of what is returned.

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 conveys that this tool queries data about a specific parte envolvida ata via a detailed API path, which implies when it should be used: when the caller has all seven path identifiers (cnpj, anoCompra, sequencialCompra, sequencialAta, cnpjOrgao, codUnidade, tipoParteEnvolvida). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as pncp_obter_orgaos_compras_atas_partesenvolvidas_por_cnpj_anocompra_sequencialcompra_sequencialata (which lists all partes envolvidas for an ata). The route is informative but the description does not tell the agent to prefer the list endpoint when the specific party identifiers are unknown.

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