compras_pncp_contratacoes_publicacao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value beyond the schema by revealing that the esfera filter is applied client-side, that the total_registros reflects unfiltered counts, the maximum time window, and cache duration. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior, but these are partially covered by the schema.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding unique value: listing action, endpoint and scope, modality codes, and important behavioral notes (client-side filter, window, cache). No wasted words.

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 9 parameters, 3 required, and many siblings, the description covers the core functionality and key caveats. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like 'compras_contratacoes_14133_listar', but the scope and modality focus are implied. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, making the description adequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning by explaining common modality codes (e.g., 6=Pregão Eletrônico) and clarifying that the esfera filter is client-side with implications on total_registros. It also mentions the 30-day window and cache, which are not in 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 clearly states the tool lists published contracts in PNCP for a period, with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('contratações publicadas'). It mentions the endpoint, scope (all federation entities), and common modality codes, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'compras_pncp_contratacao_por_orgao' that focus on specific orgs.

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 context on when to use the tool (date range and modality filtering) and includes important caveats like the client-side esfera filter, 30-day maximum window, and 15-minute cache. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving room for improvement.

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