compras_pncp_contratacao_item_resultados

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 15-minute cache behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination or edge-case behavior such as empty results; the output schema mitigates this somewhat.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: the purpose, the endpoint, and the cache note. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple parameterized read operation, the description is complete: it states the purpose, provides the exact endpoint, notes the cache duration, and the output schema covers return values. No critical calling requirement is missing.

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 even without parameter details in the tool description. The endpoint path mirrors the parameter names and adds minor contextual meaning, but the description does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Lista' and the precise resource: 'resultados (vencedores) de um item específico de contratação no PNCP.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from item-listing or contract-listing siblings, and the endpoint reinforces the exact 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 implies when to use it through the phrase 'de um item específico', making the intended use clear. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as when results for an entire contratação are needed.

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