compras_legado_compras_sem_licitacao

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds only an implementation detail (endpoint) plus the upstream year requirement. There is no disclosure of return behavior or pagination beyond what the schema and output schema already provide, so it meets but does not exceed the annotation-covered baseline.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the purpose and then give the critical upstream constraint. The bolded emphasis on dt_ano_aviso makes the most important call detail prominent without extra prose.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description only needed to add the required-year caveat, which it does. It could improve by naming a sibling alternative, but nothing essential is missing for a correct read-only call.

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 9 parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explicitly warning that upstream requires dt_ano_aviso as an integer year (e.g., 2024) and 'não janela de datas,' which prevents a likely date-range misuse beyond the schema's simple 'Ano do aviso' note.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista compras sem licitação (dispensa/inexigibilidade) do regime legado.' This clearly separates the tool from legacy licensed-bidding siblings and states exactly what it returns.

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 implies use for legacy no-bid purchases and gives the endpoint, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like compras_legado_licitacoes_listar or compras_legado_pregoes_listar. The dt_ano_aviso guidance is an invocation constraint, not an alternatives comparison.

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