compras_pncp_pca_por_usuario

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Cache 1h' (1-hour cache), which is a behavioral trait. It also mentions the endpoint URL. While it doesn't cover every detail (e.g., auth requirements, error states), the caching info adds important transparency beyond the schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage context with alternative, and cache duration. Front-loaded and tight.

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 needed in description), 4 parameters, and enough context from schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and caching. It could mention pagination behavior or error cases, but the schema already covers pagination limits. One minor gap: it doesn't clarify what happens if the user ID is invalid, but that's acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The description of id_usuario's rarity is in the schema, not the tool description. No extra value added.

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 action ('Lista PCAs') and the resource ('vinculados a um usuário/sistema integrador específico'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'compras_pncp_pca_listar' by specifying the filtering criterion (user vs. CNPJ of órgão).

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 advises when to use this tool: 'Uso menos comum — geralmente o analista prefere compras_pncp_pca_listar com cnpj_orgao.' This gives clear guidance on preference and an alternative, which is excellent for an agent.

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