compras_contrato_comprasnet_consultar

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds significant behavioral context: it states that CPFs are masked due to LGPD compliance and that the cache duration is 15 minutes. It also mentions that the response includes embedded sub-resources. These details go beyond the schema and help the agent understand what to expect.

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 with only three brief sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key behavioral traits, and the third gives a cache detail. Every sentence is essential and none are wasted.

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 tool with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, data privacy implications, performance characteristics, and parameter source. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the return type, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this need.

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%, and the description adds value by clarifying that the ID is internal to Comprasnet and may differ from the ID in Dados Abertos, and explicitly states where to get it. This prevents common errors and adds meaningful context beyond the schema definition.

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 it consults the full detail of a contract in Comprasnet via a specific API endpoint. It explicitly distinguishes the parameter source by mentioning that the ID comes from a specific sibling tool, which differentiates it from other contract query 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 implies usage by noting the ID must be obtained from 'compras_contrato_comprasnet_por_uasg', giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling context and parameter description provide reasonable guidance.

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