compras_legado_licitacao_consultar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the upstream endpoint and the important constraint that id_compra must be a string, not a numeric id, which prevents a likely misuse.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary purpose appears in the first sentence, and the endpoint/parameter nuance follows without redundancy. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter read operation with an output schema present and strong annotations, the description is complete. It identifies the exact input, where that input comes from, and the upstream behavior, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 documents id_compra as a SIASG string returned by the listing tool. The description adds extra semantic value by emphasizing that upstream expects a string and explicitly rejecting a numeric id, addressing a real boundary condition.

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 states a clear verb ('Consulta'), a specific resource ('licitação legado'), and the lookup key ('pelo id_compra'). The endpoint path further disambiguates it from sibling listing tools like compras_legado_licitacoes_listar.

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 the intended workflow: the id_compra is returned by compras_legado_licitacoes_listar, so this tool is for consulting a specific legacy procurement after listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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