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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds that it does not alter business records and that credentials/authentication identity must never be passed as arguments, which is useful and not covered by annotations. However, it does not describe pagination, result expiry, or other async-specific behavior beyond pointing to gover_ler_resultado.

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 description is composed of short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence carries a distinct instruction or constraint, though the density of security and payment notes slightly dilutes focus on the primary operation.

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 11-parameter, no-output-schema, async tool, the description covers read-only safety, credential handling, and async follow-up, but omits parameter meanings, async result lifecycle, and sibling differentiation. It is minimally adequate but leaves important operational gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema documents only types and enums without meaning. The description says fields follow the API contract but does not explain any of the 11 parameters (termo, cidadeId, clientId, tipoOpcao, etc.), leaving the agent without semantic guidance for a complex parameter set.

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 it consults asynchronous air availability using the connected Gover account, but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like gover_buscar_voos, gover_cotar_voos, gover_consultar_resultados_voos, or gover_iniciar_pesquisa_aerea. An agent cannot clearly tell when async availability is preferred over synchronous search or quotation.

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 hints at asynchronous retrieval by directing the agent to use gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultId for long results, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternative flight search siblings. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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