compras_orgao_consultar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the 24-hour cache and summarizing the returned data, which complements rather than contradicts the annotations.

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 sentences, all informative and front-loaded. The purpose, return content, and caching behavior are stated with no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read-only lookup with a full output schema, the description is sufficient: it states what is queried, what is returned, and a behavioral caveat (cache). It does not need to restate return structure since the output schema exists.

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 input schema fully documents codigo_orgao as an integer with a 4-6 digit description, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'pelo código' and adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Consulta' and the resource 'órgão específico pelo código', and lists returned fields. It is specific enough to distinguish from listing tools like compras_orgao_listar, though it never explicitly contrasts it with siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a specific órgão code. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or what alternative to prefer if the code is unknown or if listing is required.

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