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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it is prepare-only (no execution), uses only the connected Gover account's permissions, credentials must never be passed as arguments, and new payment data must be filled in the Gover portal.

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 and the prepare-only constraint, then layers operational rules. Every sentence carries a distinct rule; length is justified by the number of policies covered.

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 transactional flow, credential/payment policies, and result-readback routing are all covered for a destructive, open-world tool with no output schema. The remaining hole is the meaning of the nine fields, which is left entirely to the external API contract.

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 9 parameters, so the description carries full burden of explaining them. It only offers 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which explains nothing about any individual field. This is a significant gap for a 9-param tool.

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 (Atualizar) and resource (grupo de atendimento da solicitacao), and the title makes clear it is a preparation step. It distinguishes itself from write-executing siblings by declaring 'Prepara a acao, sem executa-la'.

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?

Explicit two-step workflow: show parameters to the user, and only after explicit confirmation invoke gover_confirmar_operacao. Also routes to gover_ler_resultado for long results. Clear context and a named alternative, though it never states when *not* to call it.

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