compras_pesquisar_preco_material

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds substantial operational context beyond them: the upstream endpoint, 10-minute cache, a documented upstream 404 failure mode, and the fact that the tool returns `_erro_upstream` instead of raising an exception. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure that helps an agent handle edge cases.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and sibling alternatives. The upstream-break narrative is detailed and slightly verbose, though it supports troubleshooting; the information is useful enough that only minor trimming would make it fully tight.

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 8-parameter schema, the output schema, and the unusual upstream behavior, the description covers all essential context: purpose, endpoint, sibling routing, response contents, caching, and error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to select or call this tool correctly is missing.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description mentions endpoint-level parameter history (`codigoItemCatalogo` replaced by `tipo` + `codigo`) and response fields, but it does not add meaningful semantics to the parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Pesquisa preços praticados em compras de material (CATMAT) pelo governo.' It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings by noting that compras_detalhar_preco_material does NOT return a price and that compras_pesquisar_precos_para_etp provides consolidated statistics instead. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit routing guidance: for consolidated average/median statistics, use compras_pesquisar_precos_para_etp; for unit prices of materials, this is the tool. It also explicitly warns that compras_detalhar_preco_material does not return prices, helping the agent avoid the wrong sibling.

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