compras_legado_compras_sem_licitacao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing that the upstream requires a single year integer (not a date window) for `dt_ano_aviso`. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, authentication needs, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The description is adequate 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?

The description is two sentences: purpose then endpoint+constraint. Every sentence contributes essential information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words or repetition.

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 9 parameters and an output schema. The description focuses on the key constraint (year required) and purpose. It does not explain pagination or other parameters, but those are covered in the schema. The output schema exists, so return values are documented. The description is mostly complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it could briefly mention the legacy regime context or typical use cases.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds emphasis that `dt_ano_aviso` is required and must be a year, but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. The description does not add meaning for other parameters. Given high coverage, baseline is 3; the description provides marginal additional value.

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 purchases without bidding (dispensa/inexigibilidade) from the legacy regime. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'compras_legado_licitacoes_listar' which list bids, and the name itself differentiates it. The verb 'Lista' and resource 'compras sem licitação' are specific and unambiguous.

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 the upstream requirement for `dt_ano_aviso` as a full year, not a date range, which guides correct usage. It implies the tool is for legacy regime purchases without bidding, but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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