compras_pncp_pca_por_usuario

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful caching note ('Cache 1h'), which is behavioral context not present in the annotations, giving the agent additional expectations about response freshness.

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 concise: two short sentences plus the endpoint and cache note. It immediately states the purpose, provides the usage contrast, and includes all necessary extra context without any redundancy or filler.

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 simple list operation, existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: clear purpose, explicit alternative, and cache behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters (including the meaning of `id_usuario` and defaults for `pagina` and `tamanho_pagina`). The tool description itself does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline score applies.

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 linked to a specific user/integrator system, with a specific verb and resource. It also identifies the exact endpoint and contrasts it with the preferred sibling tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 this is less common and recommends using `compras_pncp_pca_listar` with `cnpj_orgao` instead, providing clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. The parameter description for `id_usuario` reinforces that this is rarely used by analysts.

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