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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the auth model (exclusive use of the connected Gover account and its API permissions), forbids passing credentials/identity as arguments, and defines the pagination hand-off to gover_ler_resultado via resultadoId. The 'nao altera registros' line is redundant with readOnlyHint but harmless.

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-loaded with the purpose and reasonably compact, but a third of the text is boilerplate governance policy (credentials, payment data) that crowds out the operationally important parameter guidance an agent actually needs.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description does cover result-size handling, auth scope and safety. It is incomplete on the seven mostly-undocumented input parameters, which is the largest gap, but the operational context it does supply keeps it at a minimum-viable level.

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 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden — and it does not. 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' is a non-explanation that gives no meaning for termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto or finalidadeViagemId, several of which are ambiguous IDs.

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 ('Pesquisar') and resource ('lojas de locadoras'), making the operation legible. It is distinguishable in spirit from siblings like gover_buscar_veiculos or gover_buscar_cidades_veiculo, but the description never explicitly contrasts with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies a search/lookup use case and gives one concrete directive: use gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId for large result sets. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as gover_buscar_veiculos or gover_iniciar_pesquisa_veiculo, leaving usage selection to inference.

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