senado_contratacao_detalhe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it explains the return format, limits (default 100, max 500), and error conditions for invalid type-section combinations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 appropriately sized, with each sentence serving a purpose. It is well-structured: purpose first, then parameter details, return format, usage note, and error condition. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, type-section combinations, pagination via limite, output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: it explains the purpose, parameter meanings, return structure, limits, prerequisites, and error handling. The output schema exists but the description provides enough context on the return fields.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of each parameter: id is from lists, tipo enumerations with descriptions, secao with restrictions (aditivos only for contratos, acionamentos only for atas), and limite with default and max. This significantly aids understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool details a specific section of a contracting. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that the id should be obtained from 'senado_contratos' or 'senado_contratacoes_lista'.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to get details of a contracting section) and prerequisites (obtain id from list tools). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient. No explicit alternatives are given, but the prerequisite hints at the workflow.

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