compras_contrato_historico_aditivos

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions client-side pagination (since upstream doesn't paginate) and a 15-minute cache for the full payload. This gives useful but limited insight—it doesn't discuss idempotency, error handling, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict anything because there are no 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 very concise: two lines covering purpose and key technical details (pagination, cache). It avoids unnecessary words. However, the first line could be slightly more descriptive (e.g., specifying that it lists amendments/versions of a contract), but it's still effective.

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 tool has three parameters (all documented in schema), an output schema (covering return structure), and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the purpose and key behavioral details (pagination, cache). It doesn't explain the response format in depth, but the output schema likely covers that. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and use this 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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra meaning—only the cache and pagination note. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, but the description provides some additional context about how pagination works (client-side) and the cache duration, earning a 4.

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 aditivos do contrato' clearly states the tool lists contract amendments (aditivos) from the endpoint /api/contrato/{id}/historico. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compras_contratos_consultar (general contract info) or compras_contrato_empenhos (obligations), but it doesn't explicitly mention it's a contrasting alternative to any specific sibling.

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 hints at usage by noting the contract ID parameter and client-side pagination, implying it should be used when you need amendment history for a specific contract. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to consider for different scenarios (e.g., if you need contract details rather than amendments).

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