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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description meaningfully extends this: it uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions, it never alters business records, credentials/identity must never be passed as arguments, and large results are paginated via resultadoId. These are useful operational facts beyond the safety hints, though it doesn't describe the actual shape of returned vehicle data.

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 definition is short, front-loads the scope, and each sentence (auth, credential warning, pagination routing, payment restriction) carries distinct value. The opening sentence is essentially a restatement of the title, which is the only wasted line.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers auth scope, safety, pagination, and a payment restriction, which is decent. But with a complex nested 8-parameter schema at 0% description coverage, the absence of any parameter guidance leaves a real gap that the description should have closed.

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 8 parameters, one required nested object with many sub-fields (termo, cidadeId, dtRetirada, localDevolucao, etc.). The only parameter-related text is 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which adds no meaning and does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent to guess at each field's semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Pesquisar veiculos disponiveis'), so an agent understands this searches for available vehicles. However, it offers no differentiation from the many vehicle siblings (gover_buscar_lojas_veiculo, gover_buscar_cidades_veiculo, gover_iniciar_pesquisa_veiculo, gover_consultar_veiculos_ofertados), so the agent cannot tell which vehicle-search entry point applies.

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 routes the agent to gover_ler_resultado when results are extensive, which is a genuine alternative-selection rule, and it cautions that new payment data must go only through the Gover portal. But it never states when to use this tool versus the other vehicle search/init siblings, leaving the core selection decision to inference.

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