Editais abertos no PNCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data comes from the public PNCP API and only covers notices with open proposals, and it advertises the returned fields (órgão, valor estimado, prazo, link), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first states the resource and filters, the second states the returned fields. No filler or repetition.

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?

With full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient, covering source, scope, filters, and return contents. The only gaps are pagination/rate behavior on the API side and any pointer to the sibling tool when a different notices source is wanted.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter, including both enums and the pagination bounds, is documented inline. The description merely restates the same filter dimensions, adding no syntax, defaults, or inter-parameter behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: open-for-proposal licitações from the PNCP public API, with the filter dimensions listed. An agent can grasp what it does immediately, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling editais search tool (buscar_editais_bitbusca), so the source-based differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter list (keyword, UF, município, modalidade, deadline), which tells the agent how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no mention of the alternative editais search tool. The agent must infer that this is the PNCP source as opposed to BitBusca.

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