Editais abertos (PNCP e outros portais)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the tool requires an API key and belongs to an "avançado" tier, and it discloses that results yield an id consumed by other tools. Pagination/cursor behavior is left to the schema.

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 tight sentence with the key prerequisite front-loaded in brackets and the downstream hand-off at the end. Nothing is redundant, though the bracketed prefix is slightly compressed to the point of terseness.

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 an 8-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description covers source scope, auth requirement and the returned id. The remaining gap is the absence of any differentiation from the sibling editais_abertos, which an agent would need in order to choose correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. "filtros de valor e prazo" loosely points at valorMin/valorMax and encerraAte but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Busca editais abertos") plus the sources it queries (PNCP e outros portais) and its filter dimensions (valor, prazo). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool editais_abertos, so an agent must guess which listing tool to pick.

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?

"Avançado: exige BITBUSCA_API_KEY" gives a prerequisite, and naming ler_edital/analisar_edital as consumers of the returned id signals the follow-on workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over editais_abertos or when it should not be used, so usage is only implied.

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