compras_pncp_pca_por_usuario

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond those: the specific PNCP endpoint and a 1-hour cache TTL. This is relevant for freshness expectations and goes beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 elements: what it does, endpoint, and usage guidance with cache note. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded before the alternative and technical details.

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, paginated list tool with rich annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema present, the description provides all essential context: purpose, endpoint, usage alternative, and cache behavior. Nothing critical 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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description only reinforces the id_usuario concept in prose without adding meaning not already present; baseline 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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista PCAs vinculados a um usuário/sistema integrador específico.' It clearly differentiates this tool from the likely alternative compras_pncp_pca_listar by naming that sibling and the condition that selects 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?

Explicitly says this is less common and that analysts generally prefer compras_pncp_pca_listar with cnpj_orgao. This gives an agent concrete routing guidance without having to infer it from tool names or schemas.

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