compras_pncp_contratacoes_atualizacao

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the client-side `esfera` filtering behavior and the 15-minute cache, plus the update/retification semantics, without contradicting the 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, each adding distinct information: what the tool lists, why it is useful, and operational caveats (client-side filter, cache). No filler or repetition.

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 read-only PNCP listing tool with a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, use case, cache behavior, and the one important filtering caveat. It could be stronger only by explicitly contrasting this endpoint with the publication-focused sibling tool.

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%, including date formats, page defaults, and modalidade code mappings. The description only echoes that `esfera` is a client-side filter and adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a concrete action and object: 'Lista contratações alteradas no período (PNCP)' and identifies the exact endpoint. The monitoring purpose — finding retified/republicated notices — clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools such as compras_pncp_contratacoes_publicacao.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: for monitoring edits, retifications, and republications of contracting notices. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'alteradas' framing strongly implies contrast with publication-focused sibling tools.

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