compras_pncp_pca_por_classificacao_superior

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the endpoint, cache duration (1 hour), and the filtering behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. While the read-only nature can be inferred, more clarity would be beneficial.

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 concise sentences: purpose, endpoint reference, and usage example with caching info. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. 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 that an output schema exists (known from context) and the tool is a filtered list operation, the description covers the core purpose, filter mechanism, and caching. It could mention pagination behavior or state that results are paginated by default, but the schema already provides defaults. The example helps completeness. Minor gaps include lack of authorization or error conditions, but overall sufficient for typical usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'codigo_classificacao_superior' is a superior classification code and references a table. It also provides usage context (e.g., IT items). However, it does not elaborate on 'ano', 'pagina', or 'tamanho_pagina' beyond what the schema says, so the added semantic value is moderate.

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 that the tool lists PCA items filtered by superior category (classificacao superior). It differentiates from siblings like compras_pncp_pca_listar by specifying the filter and includes an example ('todos os itens de TI planejados para o ano'). The verb 'Lista' and resource 'itens de PCA' are specific.

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 implies usage when you need to aggregate procurement plans by superior category, with a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., compras_pncp_pca_listar for unfiltered lists) or state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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