get_contrato

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get the full details' without disclosing behavior such as error handling, what happens if both or none parameters are given, or if the operation is read-only. The agent lacks information about side effects or constraints.

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?

A single sentence that conveys purpose and parameter usage efficiently. No redundant information; every word serves a purpose.

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?

While the description covers how to invoke the tool, it lacks information about the output format or what 'full details' includes. Without an output schema, the agent cannot anticipate the response structure, which is a gap for a simple get operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the relationship between parameters: they are two alternative ways to identify a contract. This clarifies intent beyond the raw schema showing four optional fields.

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 gets full contract details from PNCP, with two distinct identification methods. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_contratos and get_licitacao by specifying the exact resource and parameters.

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 explicitly instructs to provide either 'numeroControlePNCP' or the triplet 'orgaoCnpj/ano/sequencial', which is clear guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives like search_contratos when the identifier is unknown.

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