compras_contrato_historico_aditivos

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar for additional transparency is lower. The description adds meaningful operational behaviors: client-side pagination because the upstream does not paginate, and a 15-minute cache of the full payload. No contradictions with the 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, with two short sentences covering the core purpose, endpoint, pagination behavior, and caching. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 simple parameter set and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool does and how the parameters behave. It does not need to enumerate return fields because the output schema covers that.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that pagination is client-side and that the upstream returns the full payload, which clarifies how pagina and tamanho_pagina should be interpreted.

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 lists contract amendments ('aditivos do contrato') and includes the specific endpoint path. The verb 'Lista' is specific and the resource is clearly identified by contract ID, distinguishing it from related contract 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 does not explain when to use this tool versus other contract-related alternatives such as compras_contrato_comprasnet_consultar or compras_contratos_consultar. It only provides operational details about pagination and caching, not usage context or exclusions.

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