indicadores_compras

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Visão agregada' implies a non-mutating summary read, but the description says nothing about data freshness, whether results are precomputed/cached, rate limits, or how pagination interacts with an aggregate result set.

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 resource and then the scope, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects a lack of content rather than disciplined editing.

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, but for a tool with zero annotations and two undocumented parameters the description omits the essential context: which indicators are available, what the aggregation dimension is, and when to choose this over the listing siblings.

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% for 2 parameters, so the description would need to compensate and does not. 'pagina' and 'tamanho_pagina' are conventional names with schema defaults (1 and 10), but the description adds no meaning about valid ranges or what each page of an aggregate contains.

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 identifies the resource (consolidated federal public procurement indicators) and the shape of the output (aggregated view of volume and values), which separates it at a high level from the listar_*/detalhar_* siblings that return itemized records. However, it never says which indicators are computed (counts, totals, by-supplier, by-modality), so the purpose stays vague beyond 'some aggregate'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the 14 sibling tools. An agent must infer that this is the summary/statistics tool rather than a listing tool, and receives no signal about prerequisites or whether it should be preferred over e.g. listar_contratacoes_publicadas for totals.

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