compras_pncp_pca_atualizacao

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

With no annotations provided, the description must self-disclose behavior. It mentions the endpoint, a 1-hour cache, and the action of listing updated PCAs. However, it does not state output format details, rate limits, or required authentication. The cache note is helpful for an agent to understand data freshness. A 4 is appropriate because it covers key behavioral aspects (cache, endpoint) without being exhaustive.

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 compact with three sentences: the core function, the endpoint, and a hint about cache and monitoring use. Each sentence adds value and is front-loaded. The second and third sentences provide useful context without redundancy. It loses one point for being slightly terse about the monitoring use case but remains efficient.

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 has an output schema (not shown but flagged as present), the description does not need to detail return values. The input schema is fully covered by annotations. The description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and use case. However, it lacks guidance on pagination behavior or how to interpret the results (e.g., what fields are in a PCA). Still, for a listing tool with a known output schema, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra parameter guidance beyond defining the tool's overall scope. All parameter details (formats, defaults, constraints like 30-day window) are already present in the schema. The description repeats none of these, so it adds no value above the schema. Hence a score of 3.

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 (Plano de Contratações Anual) updated within a period, specifying the endpoint and its utility for monitoring which agencies have recently revised their PCA. The verb 'Lista' combines with resource 'PCAs atualizados' and context 'num período' to make the tool's function explicit. Among siblings like 'compras_pncp_pca_listar' and 'compras_pncp_pca_por_usuario', this one is uniquely identified as the update-fetching variant, effectively distinguishing it.

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 it is 'Útil para monitoramento: descobrir quais órgãos revisaram seu PCA recentemente', indicating a monitoring use case. It does not, however, specify when NOT to use it or suggest alternative tools for other PCA lookups (like listing all PCAs or filtering by user). With the sibling 'compras_pncp_pca_listar' present, an explicit exclusion would be beneficial, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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