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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's repetition that it 'Nao altera registros de negocio' is redundant. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it uses only the connected Gover account, forbids passing credentials or auth identity as arguments, directs extensive results to gover_ler_resultado, and restricts new payment data to the Gover portal. Missing rate limits or error behavior, but this is solid added context.

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 front-loaded with purpose and structured as short sentences, but several sentences do not earn their place for this specific tool: 'Nao altera registros de negocio' duplicates annotations, 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' is filler, and the payment-data note seems tangential to a city search. The auth and result-handling guidance is useful, but the overall text contains avoidable generic boilerplate.

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?

Annotations provide a rich safety profile and there is no output schema, but the description still leaves a critical gap for a 7-parameter search tool: no parameter semantics whatsoever. It gives some context about auth, result pagination via resultadoId, and payment restrictions, but an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool correctly without knowing what the input fields mean or what the normal return shape is.

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?

There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what each one means. It only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which adds no meaning for termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto, or finalidadeViagemId. An agent would have no guidance on which parameter to use or how to combine them.

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 states a specific verb ('Pesquisar') and resource ('cidades') scoped to 'hospedagem', which clearly separates it from the vehicle counterpart in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the tool with alternatives such as gover_buscar_cidades_veiculo, leaving sibling differentiation implicit rather than stated.

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?

The description implies usage via its purpose sentence and provides post-call guidance ('Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado') along with account-permission constraints. It still lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like gover_buscar_hoteis or gover_buscar_cidades_veiculo, so routing remains inferred rather than instructed.

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