compras_pncp_contratacao_por_orgao

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: the 15-minute cache and the guarantee that the complete contracting header is returned. 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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, endpoint, return scope, and cache behavior with no filler. The main lookup verb and key are front-loaded.

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, fully documented parameter set with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the remaining operational details an agent needs (endpoint and cache TTL). Nothing essential 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?

All three parameters are already fully documented in the schema with types, formats, and lengths (100% coverage). The description adds only the composite-key relationship and endpoint mapping, which are helpful but do not materially extend 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 states a specific action ('Consulta'), a specific resource ('contratação específica'), and the exact composite key (CNPJ + ano + sequencial). The endpoint path further distinguishes it from sibling contract/listing tools by identifying the exact URL pattern.

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 clearly frames the tool as a direct lookup for one specific contracting record by exact identifiers, which is clear context for agent selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a simple idempotent lookup that gap is minor.

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