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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond that — the large-result overflow pattern (resultadoId → gover_ler_resultado) and an explicit prohibition on passing credentials or auth identity as arguments. The 'Nao altera registros de negocio' line largely restates readOnlyHint, and the payment-data sentence is tangential to a city search.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence is short and single-purpose. Slight waste from the readOnly restatement and the payment-data sentence, which does not apply to a city lookup.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without any way to construct a meaningful query or anticipate the response shape. Auth constraints and the pagination escape hatch are covered, but the core input semantics and return format are not.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description compensates with nothing — 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' is a non-answer that explains no field. termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto and finalidadeViagemId remain completely uninterpretable from 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+resource ('Pesquisar cidades para locacao') that clearly identifies the vehicle-rental city lookup, distinguishing it in domain from gover_buscar_cidades_hotel. It does not, however, name or explicitly contrast the sibling search tools, so an agent must infer the boundary from the 'locacao' qualifier alone.

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?

Provides one concrete usage rule — if results are extensive, call gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId — which is genuinely actionable. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus gover_buscar_cidades_hotel, gover_buscar_lojas_veiculo or gover_iniciar_pesquisa_veiculo, and no prerequisites are stated beyond the implicit Gover account.

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