compras_versao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read-only diagnostic tool that returns version, upstream sources, and configuration status without exposing sensitive values. It also mentions the specific dependency on the Transparency key for sanctions tools. A slight deduction is warranted because it doesn't explicitly state the tool has no side effects or guarantee zero cost.

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 two sentences long, each earning its place. The first sentence defines core output; the second sentence clarifies practical utility and a prerequisite. 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 the tool has no inputs, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return format is handled), this description is complete. It covers purpose, output content, usage context, and a dependency. There is no missing information that would hinder correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe). The description adds value by explaining what the response contains, which is more meaningful than the empty schema alone.

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 this tool is a 'Healthcheck/diagnóstico do MCP' and specifies what it returns: version, upstream sources, and configuration status of sensitive settings. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are focused on procurement, contracts, sanctions, or other specific data queries.

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 is explicit about when to use this tool: 'confirmar que o servidor está respondendo, qual a versão instalada, quais APIs estão acessíveis e se a chave da Transparência foi configurada.' It also names a prerequisite ('necessária para tools de sanções'), which helps the agent decide whether this is a needed preliminary step. No alternative tool is listed among siblings, so the description effectively stands alone as the diagnostic entry point.

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