compras_pgc_agregacao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a 1-hour cache (useful behavioral trait) and states it returns counts and totals. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or any authentication requirements. Some transparency is provided but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences: purpose, endpoint, return content and utility, cache. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool has an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the main purpose, data source, and caching. It is largely complete for a simple aggregate query, though it could mention the pagination behavior or prerequisites for the organ code. The output schema exists, so return details are not required.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., calling codigo_orgao a 'chave da agregação'), but this is largely redundant. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool aggregates PGC data by category for an organ and year. It uses the verb 'resumo agregado' and specifies the resource (PGC) and scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling list or CSV tools, though the purpose is self-evident from the name.

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 mentions the tool is 'útil para diagnóstico rápido do volume planejado', implying a high-level overview use case. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like compras_pgc_listar for detailed records. Usage is implied but not stated.

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