compras_contrato_ocorrencias

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

The description discloses that pagination is client-side and that there is a 15-minute cache. It does not mention any destructive behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and provides moderate but not exhaustive transparency.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct information. It front-loads the main purpose and operational details without any redundant or unnecessary text.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its importance, pagination behavior, and caching. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. Some minor gaps exist (e.g., error conditions), but overall it is quite complete for a list endpoint.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds the note 'Paginação client-side' which provides additional context about how pagination works, though it may be ambiguous. The cache info is unrelated to parameters. The description adds modest value beyond the schema.

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 occurrences/penalties for a contract, including the API endpoint and a note on its importance as a key indicator of supplier reliability. This uniquely identifies the tool among many contract-related siblings, as it specifically deals with penalties.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other contract detail tools (e.g., compras_contrato_historico_aditivos, compras_contrato_garantias). It only mentions its importance as a key indicator, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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