compras_pncp_contratacao_por_orgao

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 the endpoint path and that it returns the complete header of the contract. It also mentions a 15-minute cache. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The cache note is useful but incomplete for full 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?

The description is brief and to the point at three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides the endpoint and a return value note, and ends with cache info. It is efficient with no wasted words, though slightly more structure could be helpful.

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 there is an output schema (context signal: has output schema: true), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It still covers the core purpose, parameters, endpoint, and cache. For a simple lookup tool with rich input schema and output schema, this is adequate but could be more complete by noting any access restrictions or common pitfalls.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the endpoint path showing the parameter order in the URL, which provides context beyond the schema. It does not add significant additional semantics, but with full schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it queries a specific contract (contratação) using CNPJ, year, and sequential number. The verb 'consulta' is specific and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from siblings that list contracts by providing a detailed lookup by these three identifiers.

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 implicitly defines when to use this tool: when you need a specific contract given CNPJ, year, and sequential number. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the three-parameter requirement is clear. Given the large sibling list, explicit alternatives would improve it.

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