compras_pncp_contratacoes_proposta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description rightly carries full behavioral disclosure weight. It openly states the 15-minute cache duration and that the 'esfera' filter is client-side, which prevents misinterpretation of results. It also implies read-only behavior by describing listing and mapeamento. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only or non-destructive, but given the context, this is still strong.

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 extremely concise at only three short sentences and a cache note. It front-loads the core purpose and endpoint, then adds high-value usage context and a critical behavioral note about client-side filtering. No word is wasted.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 2 required, output schema present), the description provides essential usage context and behavioral notes (client-side filter, cache). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The only missing element is an explicit mention that the tool is read-only (safe), but that is implied by the listing nature. Overall, it covers the key gaps well.

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. The description adds some value by noting that 'esfera' is client-side and that '_total_registros' reflects unfiltered total, which is not in the schema. However, it does not add meaning to other parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'codigo_modalidade' merely references another input schema). Hence a 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 the verb ('Lista') and resource ('contratações com prazo de proposta aberto no PNCP'), which uniquely identifies this tool among many similar contracting tools. It also provides the endpoint path and describes useful use cases for both suppliers and analysts, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says the tool is for mapping open proposal opportunities and identifying ongoing contracts, giving clear context. It mentions the optional 'esfera' filter is applied client-side, which is an important usage caveat. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., compras_pncp_contratacoes_publicacao or compras_pncp_contratacoes_atualizacao), so it's slightly below a perfect 5.

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