compras_pgc_por_catalogo

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

No annotations are present, so the description must shoulder this burden. It mentions cache duration (1h), but lacks details on pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens if no results. The tool deals with potentially large data; disclosing default pagination (50 per page) and ordering would improve transparency.

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 concise sentences plus a fragment: first sentence states core function, second gives the endpoint for traceability, third provides a concrete use case and cache notice. No redundant or unnecessary words; front-loaded with the main action.

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 5 parameters (3 required), an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, context usage (ETP, benchmarking), and cache. It does not explain pagination defaults or the result structure, but the output schema likely covers return values, so the description is largely complete for decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context by referencing CATMAT/CATSER (matching the enum) and the year in the usage example, but does not explain parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Lista todos os PGCs que incluem determinado item de catálogo', a specific verb (lista) and resource (PGCs por item). It also contrasts with siblings like compras_pgc_listar (general listing) by filtering on catalog item, and provides an example question clarifying the tool's niche.

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 suggests when to use the tool via the example question 'Quais órgãos planejaram comprar esse item este ano? Em que quantidade?' and states it is input for ETP and benchmarking. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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