compras_fornecedor_impedimentos_por_itens

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the endpoint, cache behavior (1h), and that it returns impeded suppliers based on SICAF sanctions. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no items are provided or if an item code is invalid. The behavioral scope is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

Three short, focused sentences covering purpose, endpoint, business reason, and caching. Each sentence adds value without repetition or fluff. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a full output schema (context signal says 'Has output schema: true'), so the description doesn't need to detail return values. Parameter coverage is complete via schema. The description covers when to use, cache, and business purpose. It could mention that both parameters are optional (already in schema) and warn that providing both yields a combined result, but this is minor. Overall, quite 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%, and the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. However, the schema's descriptions are clear (list of CATMAT/CATSER codes, can be used together). Given high coverage, baseline is 3, but the description reinforces the business context and shows cache behavior, making it slightly more helpful—hence 4.

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 that the tool checks for supplier impediments on a list of CATMAT/CATSER items, with explicit references to the specific endpoint and use case (before homologating electronic auctions). It distinguishes itself from siblings that deal with sanctions but not by item list (e.g., compras_checar_sancoes_fornecedor).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Essencial antes de homologar pregões eletrônicos'), implying the critical context. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sister tools (e.g., compras_checar_sancoes_fornecedor for checking by supplier, not items). A clear exclusion would make it a 5.

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