compras_fornecedor_contratos_por_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read operation ('Lista'), specifies the HTTP POST endpoint, and mentions a 1-hour cache. This gives essential behavioral insight. However, it does not address pagination, result limits, or whether any side effects occur (though unlikely).

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 three, concise sentences. It front-loads the core action, provides the endpoint for reference, explains the use case, and ends with caching info. Every sentence is meaningful with no redundancy.

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 (2 optional params, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, and caching. It doesn't mention pagination or maximum number of codes, but the output schema fills the response structure gap. Slightly incomplete for edge cases, but adequate.

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 basic descriptions. The description adds purpose: the parameters are item codes (CATMAT/CATSER) used to find suppliers. This gives semantic meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'a buscar' phrase. It does not detail parameter formats or constraints, but the added context elevates it a point above 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 verb 'Lista' (lists), the resource 'contratos e empenhos', and the scope 'por itens (CATMAT/CATSER)'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings that list contracts by other criteria or focus on suppliers or items separately. The endpoint and purpose also reinforce specificity.

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 a concrete use case: discover who currently supplies given items (by CATMAT/CATSER codes) to identify potential participants in new biddings. This gives clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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