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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about authentication ('uses the Gover connected account... never provide credentials') and the result offset pattern, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not, however, detail pagination specifics or error behavior.

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 five short sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Most sentences add distinct value (auth, side-effect safety, result handling). However, the final sentence about payment data is only tangentially related and could be trimmed.

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 query with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile and auth, and mentions result pagination. But with 11 undocumented parameters and no explanation of how to use them, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without trial and error.

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% and there are 11 parameters, but the description only says 'fields follow the API contract' and mentions resultId for large results. It does not explain what any of the parameters mean (e.g., solicitacaoId, cidadeId, reservaId), leaving the agent with no semantic guidance. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 clear verb+resource ('Consultar assentos selecionados' = query selected seats), which distinguishes it from siblings like gover_marcar_assentos (mark seats) and gover_consultar_mapa_assentos (seat map). However, it does not explicitly say what context it operates in (e.g., a specific reservation), so the differentiation is only partially explicit.

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?

The description notes it uses the Gover account and refers to the resultId pattern for large results, which implies usage context. But it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like gover_consultar_mapa_assentos or gover_listar_passageiros_assentos, leaving the agent to infer.

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