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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, but the description adds context they cannot convey: the action is staged rather than executed, it runs exclusively under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, credentials/identity must never be passed as arguments, and new payment data must be entered only in the Gover portal. These are material behavioral constraints beyond the annotation set.

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, followed by workflow rules, then result handling and data-sensitivity notes. Each sentence carries a distinct rule, though the credential/payment sentences could be tightened slightly.

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?

The two-phase prepare/confirm workflow is well explained, so the calling model knows what happens after invocation. However, with 0% schema coverage and a nested required formData object, the agent gets no help constructing the valid payload, which is the largest remaining gap for a create-style tool with no output schema.

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 top-level parameters plus an 11-field nested formData object. The only guidance is 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which tells the agent nothing about field meaning, formats, or the tipoPassageiro enum values. The description does not compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cadastrar passageiro' = register passenger), which distinguishes it from the search-oriented sibling gover_pesquisar_passageiros. The title reinforces that this is the preparation/staging step ('Preparar:'), so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says it prepares the action without executing it, instructs to show parameters to the user, and names the exact next tool (gover_confirmar_operacao) that must be used only after explicit confirmation. It also names gover_ler_resultado for large results. This is a complete when/when-not/alternative routing.

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