compras_pncp_contratacoes_proposta

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extra behavioral facts: the exact endpoint, a 15-minute cache, and the client-side nature of the esfera filter. 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, purposeful segments: what the tool lists, why it is useful, and operational notes. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler.

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 the robust annotations, 100% parameter documentation, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the remaining context an agent needs: use cases, endpoint, cache behavior, and the client-side filter caveat. Nothing essential is missing for selecting or invoking the 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%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description mentions the esfera client-side behavior, but this largely repeats the schema text rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 ('Lista contratações') and a unique scope ('com prazo de proposta aberto no PNCP'), clearly separating it from sibling PNCP listing tools such as compras_pncp_contratacoes_publicacao or compras_pncp_contratacoes_atualizacao. The endpoint path reinforces the resource identity.

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 provides clear usage context: mapping open opportunities for suppliers and identifying ongoing contracting in comparable agencies. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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