compras_contrato_comprasnet_por_uasg

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that the upstream endpoint does not support pagination, that the tool slices results client-side, and that caching lasts 15 minutes. These are valuable behavioral details not covered by 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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an attention note about pagination and a cache note. No unnecessary words.

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 the output schema (which exists per context signals), provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Pagination behavior and caching are explained, and the output format is presumably covered by the schema.

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 input schema descriptions fully cover all four parameters, and the tool description adds context for pagina and tamanho_pagina by explaining the upstream limitation and the client-side slicing rationale. This adds usability beyond the schema alone.

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's function: listing contracts for a UASG in Comprasnet. It specifically mentions the UASG scope and the pagination behavior, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from other contract-listing 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 explains the tool's internal behavior (client-side pagination, caching) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over similar siblings like compras_contratos_listar. The usage context is inferable from the name and description, but explicit guidance is missing.

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