compras_pncp_pca_atualizacao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by revealing the PNCP endpoint and the 'Cache 1h' freshness limitation, which is important for an agent deciding whether cached results are acceptable.

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 very compact: three short sentences plus an endpoint line. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the use case and cache hint, with no redundant or filler content.

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 list tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: endpoint, date-period semantics, a concrete monitoring use case, and cache behavior. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters, including date formats, the ~30-day maximum window, and pagination defaults. The description's mention of 'num período' adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 tool lists 'PCAs atualizados num período (PNCP)', identifying a specific verb, resource, and date-range scope. It also gives the exact endpoint and a concrete monitoring use case, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compras_pncp_pca_listar, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 offers a clear use context: 'Útil para monitoramento: descobrir quais órgãos revisaram seu PCA recentemente.' This tells an agent when to use the tool, but it does not provide exclusions or explicitly compare it to related PCA tools, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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