Get all items of a Brazilian tender (PNCP)

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.03) and data fields, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences convey purpose, key data, and cost. No fluff; every word adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists expected fields (quantities, prices, units, flags) but doesn't specify format (array/object) or pagination. Sufficient for a straightforward item list.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that 'seq' is the 'PNCP sequential (NOT the Compras.gov.br number)', which helps avoid confusion.

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 returns 'All items of a Brazilian public tender' with specific fields (quantities, prices, units, SME flags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tender (header data) and search_tenders (finding tenders).

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?

It mentions the tool is 'Essential for bid/no-bid analysis' and notes it's paid, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when/when-not criteria. Usage context is implied by the tool listing items after tender discovery.

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