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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description reveals that batch mode has internal throttling and returns results ranked by value, which are useful behavioral details. It also implies the single mode returns richer detail. No contradictory side effects are mentioned.

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 well-structured with clear mode breakdowns and uses uppercase for emphasis. It is slightly repetitive regarding ranking but remains efficient and informative without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for both usage patterns and references related tools (pncp_texto, pncp_arquivos) for further actions. It doesn't cover error handling or return formats, but given the read-only nature and clear purpose, it is adequately complete.

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?

Although the schema lists both id and ids without descriptions, the description clarifies their distinct usage: id for a single opportunity, ids for a batch. It also explains the expected input (from pncp_listar) and the output difference, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 that the tool provides details of opportunities by id, with two modes (single and batch). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it complements pncp_listar/pncp_oportunidades and provides ranking by value, 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?

Explicitly explains when to use each mode: single id for complete details, batch ids for ranking by value. It contrasts with pncp_listar (which lacks value) and directs users to pass ids from pncp_listar for ranking, offering clear alternative guidance.

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