compras_pesquisar_preco_servico

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety burden on the description is low. The description adds that this is the raw CATSER service-price query and directs statistics-seeking calls elsewhere, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or result semantics beyond the schema.

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 definition is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with useful sibling routing. The endpoint string is arguably unnecessary for an agent selecting/invoking the tool, but it is not misleading and does not bloat the description.

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 moderately complex 8-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the definition covers the core decision: what it returns (raw service price results) and when to use the composite statistical tool instead. It does not mention other service-price siblings, but the open-world annotation and output schema reduce that gap.

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%, and the schema already documents all 8 parameters including the required `codigo_item_catalogo` and the format examples such as 'Código CATSER do serviço. Inteiro 4-6 dígitos. Ex.: 27332'. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline-3 case.

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 opens with a concrete action and resource: 'Pesquisa preços praticados em compras de serviço (CATSER)', which immediately identifies the tool as a service-price search and distinguishes it from material-price or consolidated-view siblings. It also names the composite alternative for consolidated statistics, reinforcing its scope.

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 tells the agent when to choose the alternative `compras_pesquisar_precos_para_etp` with tipo='servico' for consolidated IN 65/2021 statistics. It does not, however, discuss other relevant siblings such as `compras_detalhar_preco_servico` or mention prerequisites, but the main routing guidance is clear.

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