aggregate_licitacoes_por_periodo

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: internal mechanics (bucket computation via PNCP list calls, pagination up to 50 pages per bucket), performance implications (36 calls for 12-month default, more when paginating), and constraints (1830-day max, 365-day per call limit). No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then behavioral details. Every sentence adds value—no filler. While somewhat long, the density of useful information justifies the length. Efficiently structured.

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?

No output schema, so description should hint at return structure. It mentions 'counts (and optional value sums) over a time series', which provides a general shape but lacks explicit fields. Given 9 parameters and no output schema, this is still quite complete; minor gap on exact output format.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds meaning: lists modality codes with names, explains default modalities, warns that esfera and non-count metrics force pagination, and adds context about date range limits. This exceeds schema-only info.

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 the tool aggregates time series counts and optional value sums, answering 'how did volumes evolve month by month' without paginating thousands. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_licitacoes (which retrieves individual records) and compare_periodos (period comparison). The verb 'aggregate' and resource 'licitacoes' are specific.

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?

Explicit guidance: use for time series without heavy pagination; be conservative with date range × granularity when esfera or value metrics force pagination. Implicitly suggests alternatives for granular record access (search_licitacoes). Includes maximum date range (1830 days) and internal call limits.

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