buscar_editais

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the search hits a "national full-text index," which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, result ordering, auth, or the notable default status filter ("recebendo_proposta").

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 tight sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and the use case plus example trailing. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core purpose is clear. But with five params, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description leaves pagination, ordering, and the default status behavior unexplained — gaps an agent would hit on 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only illuminates "termo" via the keyword phrase and example query; the other four parameters (pagina, status, ordenacao, tamanho_pagina) are entirely undocumented, including the important default status of open/receiving-proposal notices.

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 specific verb ("Pesquisa"), resource ("editais e contratações"), and mechanism/scope ("por palavra-chave no PNCP (índice full-text nacional)"). The keyword-search framing distinguishes it from the sibling listing tools like listar_oportunidades_abertas without needing to open any schema.

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?

"Use para descobrir oportunidades por tema" gives a clear when-to-use with a concrete example query. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., listing tools) or stating exclusions, so it is context without routing.

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