get_orgao

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ("get") and lists returned fields, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, or any side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, well-structured sentence with a colon and list. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or fluff. This is concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the returned fields and source. It does not specify response format (e.g., JSON) or pagination, but for a single-profile lookup this is sufficient. Slightly more detail on the structure would push it to 5.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters (cnpj with description). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the agency identity but does not provide syntax or formatting details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a public agency profile and lists specific fields (legal name, branch of government, level, legal nature, address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cnpj_data or search_licitacoes, which target different entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain how it differs from get_cnpj_data or when to prefer get_orgao over search-based tools. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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