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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, open world; the description adds genuinely new behavior beyond those flags: a two-phase prepare/confirm workflow, the prohibition on passing credentials or auth identity, and the constraint that new payment data must be entered only in the Gover portal. It still does not disclose what side effects the eventual confirmed operation has on the cart or what the prepare step returns, so it is not fully complete.

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 purpose and the prepare/confirm contract are front-loaded, and subsequent sentences each carry operational value (auth constraint, result pagination, payment data). Several sentences read as reusable boilerplate shared across the Gover tool family, which slightly dilutes focus, but there is no significant padding.

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 workflow, auth, and result-retrieval context are well covered, which is appropriate given the destructive annotations and the absence of an output schema. However, for a tool with 13 parameters, a deep nested object, and 0% schema description coverage, the complete absence of parameter guidance leaves an agent under-informed about how to construct the call correctly.

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 0% across 13 top-level parameters and a large nested formOfertarManual object with dozens of subfields, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It offers only the meta-statement 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' and a payment-data caveat, which names no parameter and clarifies no field's meaning or required-value semantics. This is a major gap for a tool whose only required field is veiculoId while the rest of the surface is opaque.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (adicionar) and resource (veiculo ao carrinho), and the scope is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools gover_adicionar_hotel_carrinho and gover_adicionar_voo_carrinho. The second sentence adds the critical qualifier that this is a preparation step ('Prepara a acao, sem executa-la'), which further disambiguates it from the actual mutation path.

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 explicitly routes execution to a named alternative ('somente depois de confirmacao explicita use gover_confirmar_operacao') and routes large payloads to gover_ler_resultado with the resultadoId. It also names the Gover-connected account as the only permitted auth context and bans credential arguments. It does not, however, state when this tool should NOT be used (e.g., a precondition on the cart existing or a prior search step), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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