compras_contratacoes_14133_resultados_por_contratacao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the core listing action, such as pagination behavior, result scope, or what constitutes a 'resultado'.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the scope efficiently.

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?

Strong annotations, complete parameter schema, and an existing output schema make the tool callable with minimal ambiguity. The only notable gap is explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar siblings, which is not essential for a correct invocation once the contracting id is known.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself contains no parameter details, but the schema documents `id_contratacao` as the internal id from `listar_contratacoes_14133` and clarifies pagination defaults.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists results for one specific procurement under law 14.133, and the required `id_contratacao` parameter reinforces this per-entity scope. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so differentiation is implicit rather than fully spelled out.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. The main usage signal is implied by the schema documentation for `id_contratacao`, which tells the agent to obtain the id from `listar_contratacoes_14133`, but no exclusions or alternative preferences are stated.

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