compras_contrato_cronograma

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations, it discloses two meaningful behaviors: client-side pagination (with a concrete reason: some contracts have 200+ monthly entries) and a 15-minute cache. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Three short lines, no filler: main action, endpoint, pagination behavior, cache. All information is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational value.

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 output schema exists, all parameters are documented, and annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, the description covers the remaining operational context (pagination and cache). Nothing material is missing for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by showing id_contrato is the path parameter from the endpoint and explaining that pagination is client-side, which clarifies the roles of pagina and tamanho_pagina. It still does not detail page semantics beyond the schema defaults.

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 starts with a specific verb and object – 'Lista cronograma financeiro' – and includes the exact endpoint (/api/contrato/{id}/cronograma), making the operation unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling contract-resource tools such as empenhos, faturas, and garantias.

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 resource name and endpoint make it clear this is the tool for a contract's financial schedule, giving an agent enough context to choose it over related contract detail tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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