compras_pncp_contratacao_item_resultados

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 mentions a cache duration of 15 minutes, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose other traits such as whether the data is read-only, potential rate limits, or how results are ordered. A score of 3 reflects that it provides some transparency but has gaps.

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 very concise with only two sentences: one functional statement and one providing the endpoint and cache info. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. The only small deduction is that the endpoint path could be shortened or omitted for better readability.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not explain the return value structure, which is partly covered by the output schema. However, for a list endpoint with moderate complexity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The description mentions the endpoint path, which indirectly connects parameters, but this is not substantive extra semantics.

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 it lists 'resultados (vencedores)' for a specific item of a contract in PNCP, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish it from the many sibling tools, but its specificity about item-level results and the endpoint path provide adequate clarity.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need to list winners of a specific contract item, but it provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools, explicit exclusions would be helpful, but the description is minimally adequate.

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