compras_arp_por_fim_vigencia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It mentions the endpoint ('Dados Abertos') and cache duration (15 min), which are helpful. However, it does not disclose rate limits, data freshness beyond cache, error behavior (e.g., empty results), or permission requirements. The input schema already documents the 365-day limit, so the description adds limited behavioral insight beyond the cache note.

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?

The description is only four lines: a clear main sentence, endpoint path, use-case note, and cache info. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While the use-case sentence is somewhat redundant with the first line, there is no wasteful content. Minor improvement could consolidate the use case into the first sentence.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema present, no nested objects) and the high schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, filter, endpoint, target user, and caching. It could briefly mention the difference from other ARP list/query tools to fully contextualize selection, but this is not a major gap.

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%; all parameters (pagina, tamanho_pagina, data_vigencia_final_min/max, codigo_unidade_gerenciadora) are fully described there. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score is 3, as the description adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

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 begins with 'Lista ARPs cuja vigência termina dentro do intervalo informado,' which clearly states the action (list), the object (ARPs), and the filter (end-of-validity interval). The use case for identifying ARPs near expiration further clarifies intent. This tool is well-distinguished from siblings like compras_arp_listar (likely unfiltered) and compras_arp_buscar_por_objeto (search by keyword).

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?

The description states 'Permite ao gestor identificar atas próximas do vencimento,' which provides a clear use context. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives (e.g., compras_arp_listar or compras_contratos_listar_por_fim_vigencia). The endpoint path and cache info are not usage guidelines. Guidance is implied but not explicit enough for optimal selection among 80+ siblings.

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