compras_contrato_publicacoes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds valuable operational context: results are paginated client-side and cached for 15 minutes, which informs freshness expectations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact: one sentence identifying the resource and one sentence with two high-value operational facts. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 read-only list operation, the description is complete: it names the resource, includes the exact endpoint, explains pagination behavior, states cache duration, and the output schema covers return values. No critical information is missing.

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?

All three parameters already have complete schema descriptions, so the baseline applies. The description adds only the 'Paginação client-side' hint, which slightly enriches the pagination-parameter semantics but does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lista publicações DOU', reinforced by the endpoint path /api/contrato/{id}/publicacoes. This clearly identifies the tool as a reader for a contract's official gazette publications and is unambiguous against the long sibling list.

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 context is clear: use this tool to list DOU publications for a given contract, with a required id_contrato. It adds client-side pagination and a 15-minute cache as practical usage notes, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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