compras_contrato_comprasnet_por_uasg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the upstream API behavior (no pagination, large payload), the client-side slicing strategy, and caching details (15 min cache, cheap per-call slicing). This goes far beyond a simple 'list contracts' and provides critical behavioral 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 concise but structured with a clear summary line, followed by important behavioral notes. The bold attention marker is effective for front-loading critical info. Slightly verbose with the Portuguese attention note, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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 that there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, data source, pagination behavior, caching, and performance implications. For a tool with multiple complex aspects (upstream limitation, client-side slicing, caching), this is exceptionally complete and leaves no major 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides; all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'pagina + tamanho_pagina' in passing but only in context of the slicing strategy, not adding new semantic meaning.

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 specific verb 'Lista' (lists) and resource 'contratos de uma UASG no Comprasnet', distinguishing it from siblings like compras_contratos_listar which likely lists contracts from a different system or without UASG filtering. The attention note about pagination further clarifies its exact behavior.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: when needing contracts by UASG from Comprasnet. It explains the upstream API's lack of pagination and how this tool handles it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools related to contracts.

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