compras_contrato_publicacoes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions client-side pagination and a 15-minute cache, which are useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, what rate limits apply, or what happens if the contract ID is invalid. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about the tool's 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 extremely concise: two sentences, each providing essential information. The first sentence gives the purpose and endpoint, the second adds pagination and caching behavior. No extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence is earned.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and two behavioral notes (cache, pagination type). However, the 'client-side pagination' note is ambiguous given the server-side pagination parameters, and the description does not explain what a publication is or that the output will contain a list. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (pagina, id_contrato, tamanho_pagina) having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the endpoint path, which links the parameters to the contract ID. The pagination parameters are described in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate. Score is baseline 3.

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 publicações (publications) from the DOU for a specific contract, using the endpoint path. It specifies the resource (publications) and action (list). However, it does not elaborate on what a 'publicação DOU' entails, which slightly reduces clarity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain. The sibling tools include many contract-related endpoints, but none specifically for publications, so differentiation is adequate.

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 mentions 'Paginação client-side' and 'Cache 15 min', which provide some operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use compras_contrato_publicacoes vs. compras_contratos_consultar). The usage is implied: use it to retrieve publications of a contract. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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