pncp_obter_portes_empresa_por_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does communicate that the data is public and that the operation is a read/consult of a single record. However, it does not disclose error behavior, response shape, or how the id should be obtained, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded: it leads with the purpose and then identifies the endpoint. It is slightly awkwardly phrased but contains no redundant information.

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 GET operation, the description plus input schema is mostly workable. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what the returned record contains, what a valid id looks like, or how the 'original' vs 'normalized' formats affect the response. These gaps make it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 coverage is 50%: 'formato' has a useful schema description, but 'id' is only typed as an integer with no semantic explanation. The description's path '/v1/portes-empresa/{id}' reinforces that id is a path parameter, but it does not explain what the id represents or how to obtain valid IDs, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Consulta dados públicos de portes de empresa') and resource ('obter registro no caminho /v1/portes-empresa/{id}'). It is unambiguous about retrieving a single company-size record by ID, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pncp_listar_portes_empresa.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the endpoint path and the 'por_id' name suggest this is for fetching one specific record, while a list sibling would be used for enumerating records. The description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites.

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