compras_catmat_consultar

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a 24-hour cache and implies a read-only operation ('consulta'), but does not explicitly state safety, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The cache note adds value, but more details could improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, returns, use case, and caching. Every sentence earns its place with no extraneous information. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 single required parameter, presence of an output schema, and clear description of input, output fields, caching, and use case, the tool definition is complete. The description adds value beyond structured fields without being verbose.

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%, with the parameter already well-documented (integer, 4-8 digits, example). The description adds only 'pelo código', which is redundant. With high schema coverage, the description does not need to add much, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action ('consulta detalhes') and the resource ('item CATMAT específico pelo código'). It lists the fields returned and provides a use case (confirm code before price research or listing similar contracts), clearly distinguishing it from sibling search/list tools.

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 recommends using this tool to confirm the code before price research or listing similar contracts, giving clear context. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name sibling alternatives, but the use-case guidance is specific and actionable.

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