compras_contrato_empenhos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: client-side pagination and a 15-minute cache, both of which affect how an agent should interpret results.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral notes (pagination, cache) are compact and relevant.

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 simple, read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters, annotated safety hints, and an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: the resource, endpoint, pagination behavior, and caching semantics. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented with types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the endpoint path, which is acceptable given the schema fully carries that burden.

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 action and resource: 'Lista empenhos do contrato' (lists contract empenhos) and provides the exact endpoint path. This distinguishes it from sibling contract sub-resource tools like compras_contrato_faturas and compras_contrato_cronograma.

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 the usage context: use it to list empenhos for a specific contract by id_contrato. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools, leaving selection partly to inference.

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