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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real context on top: the operation runs exclusively under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, credentials or authentication identity must never be passed as arguments, and new payment data must be entered only in the Gover portal. That privacy/auth/payment-handling guidance is exactly the kind of beyond-schema behavior worth disclosing.

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?

Sentences are short, front-loaded, and each carries an operational constraint or routing cue rather than narrative filler. The one weak line is "Os campos seguem o contrato da API," which is effectively boilerplate and earns no place, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description adequately covers auth scope, credential handling, and result pagination. It is still incomplete for an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, since it explains neither the inputs nor anything about the consulted acceptance payload.

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 (termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, solicitacaoId, tipoCentroDeCusto, finalidadeViagemId), and the description offers no meaning for any of them. The only nod is "Os campos seguem o contrato da API," which conveys no semantics, so the description fully fails to 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?

The opening sentence restates the title nearly verbatim ("Consultar aceite de servicos adicionais"), so it names a verb and resource but adds almost no resolution beyond the name. It never distinguishes this from neighboring consult tools such as gover_consultar_solicitacao, gover_detalhar_solicitacao_completa, or gover_reemitir_adicionais, so an agent must guess which 'consulta' to pick.

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 one concrete routing rule — large results should be fetched via gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId — plus the constraint that only the connected Gover account is used. However, there is no guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus the many other solicitation-consulting siblings, which is the more consequential selection decision.

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