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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the auth constraint (never pass credentials as arguments), the pagination follow-up via resultadoId, and the policy that payment data belongs only in the portal. It omits return-shape and any rate/limit behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the follow-on sentences are short. A couple of the sentences (payment data, credential warning) read as boilerplate partly tangential to a read-only search, but nothing is padded to the point of noise.

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 7-parameter, zero-documented, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers behavior and follow-up retrieval but leaves every filter parameter unexplained. The mention of resultadoId partially compensates for the missing output schema, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 (termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto, finalidadeViagemId), and the description only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API'. No parameter's meaning, accepted values, or filtering semantics are explained, so the agent gets essentially no help interpreting the schema.

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 clear verb+resource ('Pesquisar pontos de referencia de hoteis'), so an agent knows it is a search operation over hotel reference points. However, it gives no differentiation from closely related siblings such as gover_buscar_bairros_hotel, gover_buscar_cidades_hotel, or gover_buscar_hoteis, leaving the exact scope of 'pontos de referencia' ambiguous.

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 a clear operational condition: results must come exclusively from the connected Gover account and its API permissions, and extensive results should be retrieved via gover_ler_resultado using the returned resultadoId. That is real routing guidance, but it never states when to prefer this tool over the competing hotel-search siblings.

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