compras_pncp_contrato_por_orgao

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

With readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the concrete REST endpoint and the 15-minute cache behavior. This gives useful context about data freshness and network behavior without any contradiction.

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 sentences: the operation, the endpoint, and the cache TTL. Every sentence earns its place with 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 single-record lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete, adding endpoint path and cache duration. It only lacks explicit routing against the many sibling contract tools, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 endpoint template reinforces how each parameter maps to the URL path, but the description adds no new meaning about formats, ranges, or validation beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 verb ('Consulta') and resource ('um contrato específico no PNCP'), and the endpoint path defines exactly which contract is retrieved. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list/consult tools, but the unique identifiers (cnpj, ano, sequencial) make the single-record lookup clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compras_pncp_contratos_listar, compras_pncp_contratacao_por_orgao, or compras_contratos_consultar. The only added context is the endpoint and cache TTL, which do not help with tool selection.

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