consultar_contratos_orgao

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavioral trait — results are scoped to a date window and represent that agency's contractual history — but 'vigentes' is ambiguous against the actual parameter names (vigencia_inicial_min/max), implying currently-active contracts rather than a start-date filter. Auth needs, result size, and pagination behavior are unaddressed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary scope. The second sentence is near-redundant with the first, a minor waste, but overall the description is tight and readable.

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 main filter dimension (agency + date window) is conveyed. However, given zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves pagination, date format, and the precise meaning of 'vigentes' unresolved — gaps that matter for correct invocation of a five-parameter query tool.

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 document all five parameters, but it only alludes to codigoOrgao and the date window. The pagination parameters (pagina, tamanho_pagina) receive no mention, and the date string format and the fact that the window applies to vigência inicial specifically are never clarified.

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 and resource: retrieve contracts for a specific federal agency (codigoOrgao) within a validity date window. This scope distinguishes it from the generic listar_contratos_publicados, though that sibling is not named. The second sentence ('Mostra o histórico contratual daquele órgão') largely restates the first rather than adding a new dimension.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The reader must infer from 'de um órgão federal específico' that this is the agency-filtered variant versus the broader listing siblings, but no alternative is named and no exclusion condition is stated.

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