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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations: it uses exclusively the connected Gover account and permissions, never accepts credentials, does not alter business records, and directs extensive results to gover_ler_resultado. It does not disclose rate limits or error behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds operational constraints in separate sentences. It is reasonably concise, though 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' is vague filler and the payment warning could be trimmed for a read-only consulting tool.

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?

Given the nested input object with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should explain how to supply the required form fields and what kind of data is returned. It does not cover parameter meaning at all and gives no indication of the return shape, leaving critical gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 the input is a nested 'form' object with three integer fields (opcaoId, clienteId, centroDeCustoId) that are entirely undocumented. The description only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' and 'por ID', which adds almost no meaning for the other fields or the nested structure, so it 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consultar centro de custo por ID'), making it clear this is a lookup by identifier. It implicitly distinguishes from search tools by 'por ID', but does not explicitly name or compare against siblings like gover_pesquisar_centros_custo.

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?

Provides some usage context: for extensive results use gover_ler_resultado, and new payment data must be handled only in the Gover portal. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling search tools (gover_pesquisar_centros_custo) or when it is inappropriate beyond the payment caveat.

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