compras_contrato_historico_aditivos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable runtime context: pagination is handled client-side because the upstream API does not paginate, and the complete payload is cached for 15 minutes. This sets correct expectations for freshness and pagination behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the resource and endpoint, and the second sentence covers the two key behavioral traits. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, simple schema, output schema present, and annotations covering safety), the description covers the remaining operational context—cache duration and client-side pagination. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.

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%, with parameters id_contrato, pagina, and tamanho_pagina already documented including defaults, maximum, and pagination semantics. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Lista') and identifies both the semantic resource ('aditivos do contrato') and the exact endpoint path (/api/contrato/{id}/historico). Among many contract-related sibling tools, this clearly distinguishes it as the tool for listing a contract's amendments.

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 that the tool is used to retrieve contract amendments, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over related contract tools or provide exclusions. No alternatives are named, so the agent must infer usage context from the name and endpoint.

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