compras_contrato_responsaveis

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey all important behaviors. It does so by disclosing three key behavioral traits: CPF masking for LGPD compliance ('123.***.***-45'), client-side pagination (implying the API returns all records, and the parameters control local slicing), and a 15-minute cache. These go beyond simply naming the tool's function and provide critical operational context, earning a score of 4. The only gap is a lack of explicit mention that this is a read-only operation, which is strongly implied.

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 exceptionally concise: three short lines deliver the purpose, endpoint, and three critical behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded with the primary function, followed by essential technical constraints. This is a model of efficiency.

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 of this tool (3 parameters, 1 required, simple scalar types), the description provides complete context for an agent to use it effectively. An output schema exists, so return format documentation is unnecessary. The description covers purpose, endpoint, data masking, pagination behavior, and caching. No significant gaps remain for an agent to 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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters (id_contrato, pagina, tamanho_pagina) with descriptions. The main description adds no new parameter-level information beyond the endpoint path and the pagination mention ('Paginação client-side'), which aligns with the parameter descriptions. The description does not add value for individual parameters, so scoring is at the baseline of 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 function: list contract managers/officials (fiscais/gestores) for a specific contract via the /api/contrato/{id}/responsaveis endpoint. The verb 'Lista' combined with the resource 'fiscais/gestores' and the explicit endpoint path provides high specificity. This purpose is well-distinguished from sibling tools, which focus on other contract details (items, invoices, amendments) or entirely different entities.

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 provides the core usage context: it requires a contract ID (id_contrato). It does not, however, explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compras_contratos_consultar, compras_contrato_garantias, or compras_contrato_ocorrencias. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., the contract must exist) or when not to use it.

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