compras_contrato_comprasnet_por_uasg

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations: it warns that the upstream API does not support pagination and may return over 1 MB, explains that the tool slices client-side using pagina/tamanho_pagina to protect the LLM, and discloses a 15-minute cache of the full payload. This is concrete, non-obvious operational context.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary followed by a clearly marked caveat. Every sentence contributes distinct information about payload size, pagination behavior, or caching, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description, combined with full schema coverage, the output schema signal, and the read-only/idempotent annotations, provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool lists, why pagination matters, how slicing works, and cache behavior.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds useful context about client-side slicing and caching, but it does not meaningfully deepen the semantic meaning of any individual parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('contratos de uma UASG no Comprasnet'), clearly identifying a list-by-UASG operation. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as compras_contratos_listar or compras_contrato_comprasnet_consultar.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not name any sibling or exclusion case. It explains the upstream pagination constraint but not how an agent should choose between this and the many other contract-related tools.

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