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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that the tool only prepares the action without executing it and that execution requires a separate confirmation call. It also adds operational constraints (uses only the connected account's permissions, never pass credentials, new payment data only in the Gover portal) that the annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loads the action, then adds workflow, security, and pagination notes in short sentences. Slightly boilerplate on the credentials/payment lines, but each sentence carries a distinct constraint.

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?

For a destructive, confirmation-gated approval with no output schema, the two-phase workflow and security guidance are well covered, but the meaning of the non-required parameters is left fully implicit, leaving the agent under-informed on how to populate 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only offers 'the fields follow the API contract'. Six parameters including nivel, clienteId, justificativa, and naoAprovarProximaSolicitacao go entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (aprovar) and resource (itens selecionados da solicitacao), and the title's 'Preparar:' prefix makes clear it is the prepare step, not the execution. An agent can distinguish it from reprovar/cancelar and route to gover_confirmar_operacao without opening a schema.

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 gives an explicit procedural workflow: show parameters to the user, then use gover_confirmar_operacao only after explicit confirmation, and route large results to gover_ler_resultado. It does not contrast with the approve/reject/cancel alternatives directly, but the when-to-use sequencing is clear.

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