compras_contrato_comprasnet_consultar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: CPFs are masked per LGPD, results are cached for 15 minutes, and the response contains embedded sub-resources. This is useful operational information not present in annotations.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds output shape, privacy handling, and caching behavior. Every sentence contributes distinct and relevant information.

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 well-documented parameter, available output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The included LGPD and cache details add useful operational context without leaving critical gaps.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the note that id_contrato is the internal Comprasnet ID and may differ from the Dados Abertos ID, with a pointer to the obtaining tool. The tool description itself adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool consults the complete details of a Comprasnet contract, including the endpoint path and the fact that embedded sub-resources are returned. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic contract-listing siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternative 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?

Usage context is implied: the parameter schema directs users to obtain the ID from compras_contrato_comprasnet_por_uasg, and the phrase 'sub-recursos embutidos' suggests this tool is for full-detail lookups. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus sibling contracts tools.

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