Get a Brazilian tender header (PNCP)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01) but does not mention other behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. The lack of output schema also leaves the response structure ambiguous.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists included fields. No redundant or irrelevant text. Every word serves a purpose.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and output scope. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds context about 'PNCP coordinates' but does not significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves the 'full header' of a Brazilian public tender by PNCP coordinates, listing specific fields (object, modality, status, estimated value, dates, buyer, flag). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tender_documents and get_tender_items which handle sub-parts.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_tenders or resolve_tender. It only implies usage by specifying the coordinates needed, but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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