senado_contratos

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: limit on items (default 50, max 500), truncation warning (aviso), and that filters are applied by upstream API. These complement the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then lists key details. It is concise with no redundant information, balancing completeness and brevity.

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 query tool with 7 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers return structure, parameter options, and usage link to sibling. It could mention that all parameters are optional, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explicitly naming filter parameters and explaining the 'limite' parameter's default and maximum, enhancing understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 searches for administrative contracts of the Senate by various filters (fornecedor, CNPJ, ano, número, objeto, mão de obra). It specifies the return structure and links to sibling tool senado_contratacao_detalhe for further details, making its purpose distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (for searching contracts) and how to use its output (use id for senado_contratacao_detalhe). It implies limitations (upstream API filters, limits) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to similar tools like senado_contratacoes_lista.

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