compras_contratacoes_14133_consultar

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

Annotations already fully cover the safety profile (readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so the description adds no contradiction. It contributes genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: a 'Cache 15 min' disclosure alerting the agent that data may be up to 15 minutes stale, and an enumeration of exactly which details are returned, helping the agent judge result completeness.

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?

Four short, purposeful elements: purpose sentence, endpoint, return-field summary, and cache TTL. Every line earns its place, the most important information is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup with an output schema present, the definition is nearly complete: it states purpose, endpoint, return content, and cache behavior, and the schema covers parameter provenance. The only gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance against sibling consult tools, which is partially compensated by the schema's cross-reference to listar_contratacoes_14133.

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%: the single parameter id_contratacao is already documented with its type, requirement, and provenance (the `id` returned by listar_contratacoes_14133). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the high-quality schema makes that unnecessary — baseline 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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Consulta uma contratação 14.133 pelo id interno' — a detail lookup by internal ID. The listed return fields (objeto, valor estimado, modalidade, instrumento convocatório, status no PNCP) plus the 'pelo id interno' scope clearly separate it from sibling list tools such as compras_contratacoes_14133_listar and compras_contratacoes_14133_itens_listar.

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-to-use guidance appears in the description. Usage is only implied: the endpoint name and the parameter schema's note that id_contratacao is the 'campo `id` retornado em listar_contratacoes_14133' hint at a list-then-consult workflow, but the description itself never states when to prefer this tool over sibling consult/detail tools.

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