compras_legado_licitacao_consultar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the endpoint and a type constraint, omitting whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing IDs, or any side effects. For a simple consult endpoint, this is insufficient transparency.

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 tightly packed sentences: one declaring purpose, one providing the endpoint and constraint. No filler words. Front-loaded with the most critical information. Every phrase earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (which documents return values), the simple single-parameter structure, and the clear endpoint reference, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that the tool is read-only, but overall it covers the essential context for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema already describes id_compra with 100% coverage, but the description adds context: it clarifies the endpoint path and emphasizes that the upstream requires a string, not a numeric id. This extra semantic detail beyond the schema earns a score above 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 it consults a legacy bidding process by id_compra, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compras_legado_licitacoes_listar (list) and compras_legado_itens_licitacao_listar (list items). The specific verb 'Consulta' and resource 'licitação legado' leave no ambiguity.

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 gives a crucial usage hint: the upstream expects id_compra as a string, not a numeric id. This helps the agent avoid passing the wrong type. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, it clearly implies use when a specific string id is available.

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