compras_pgc_agregacao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: the exact Dados Abertos endpoint, a 1-hour cache, and the fact that it returns counts and totals per category/group. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the headline summary appears first, followed by endpoint, return content, use case, and cache behavior. Each of the three sentences earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With an output schema present and robust annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers purpose, output type, endpoint, and cache behavior for a low-complexity read tool. It is slightly incomplete in not positioning itself relative to the PGC sibling tools or mentioning pagination behavior, though the schema already documents defaults and limits.

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 baseline is 3. The description recontextualizes parameters ('num ano', 'órgão') and the aggregation theme, but does not add substantial per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states for ano, codigo_orgao, pagina, and tamanho_pagina.

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 identifies the tool's specific resource and granularity: 'Resumo agregado do PGC de um órgão num ano' and 'Retorna contagens e valores totais por categoria/grupo'. It is distinct from plain listing tools by emphasizing aggregation and totals, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling PGC tools such as compras_pgc_listar or compras_pgc_listar_csv.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'útil para diagnóstico rápido do volume planejado pelo órgão', indicating when an agent should reach for this tool. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternative sibling tools, so it does not fully satisfy the 5-level bar.

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