compras_contrato_empenhos

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

The description discloses two behavioral traits: client-side pagination and a 15-minute cache. These add value beyond the schema, but with no annotations, the description carries the burden for safety and side effects. As a read operation, this is less critical, but the information is minimal and does not cover potential errors or limits.

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 extremely concise, with the purpose in the first line and behavioral notes in the second. Every sentence provides value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key behaviors. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it among many similar contract detail tools, but the tool name and description make the use case clear enough.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it merely mentions pagination behavior, which the parameter descriptions already imply.

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 'Lista empenhos do contrato' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's function. The endpoint path further clarifies what it does, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like faturas, garantias, or ocorrências.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states only the basic functionality without mentioning scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to 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.