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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it states the operation runs only under the connected Gover account permissions, forbids passing credentials as arguments, and explains the large-result overflow pattern via resultadoId. That is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Sentences are short and mostly front-loaded, but the body reads as a scattered list of policy disclaimers (credentials, payment data, business records) with some redundancy against the annotations. Efficient enough but not tight; the payment-portal rule is only loosely relevant to a read-only search.

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?

Safety and auth constraints are reasonably covered and the resultadoId overflow path is mentioned in lieu of an output schema. But for a tool with a deep nested formData object and 0% schema documentation, the description leaves the agent without any field-level guidance on how to actually construct the search request.

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% and there are 8 top-level params plus a nested formData with ~17 sub-fields (checkIn, checkOut, destino, quartos, categoria, pageSize, etc.), none documented. The only param-related sentence, 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', adds no meaning whatsoever. The description fails to compensate for a severe coverage gap.

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 opens with 'Pesquisar hoteis disponiveis', which is essentially a verbatim restatement of the title, giving a clear verb+resource but no differentiation from the many hotel siblings (gover_iniciar_pesquisa_hotel, gover_consultar_hoteis_ofertados, gover_validar_pesquisa_hotel, gover_buscar_quartos). An agent cannot tell from the text alone which hotel tool to pick. Purpose is legible but flat.

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 one routing rule – 'Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado' – which is genuinely useful follow-up guidance. However, it never states when to use this search tool versus the other hotel-search siblings, so selection guidance is only partial.

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