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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies that it uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions, does not alter business records, forbids passing credentials or authentication identity as arguments, and directs large results to gover_ler_resultado. That is more behavioral detail than the annotations supply.

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 main purpose and then lists constraints in compact sentences. It is appropriately sized for the tool and each sentence adds a distinct point (scope, safety, auth, routing, data-entry rule). One sentence, 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', is vague and does not earn its place, but overall it 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 retrieval tool with annotations detailing the safety profile, the description covers auth scope, mutation safety, and result-size routing. However, it lacks any explanation of the two parameters, does not describe what a 'contato de atendimento humano' result contains, and gives no pagination or error behavior. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, but there are 2 parameters (clienteId and numeroSolicitacao) with no explanation in the description or schema. The description says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which acknowledges the fields without explaining what they mean or when to provide them. Baseline is 3 when schema is rich, but here the schema is bare, so this is a gap; still, the description avoids misleading the user and provides one relevant constraint (do not pass credentials).

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+resource: 'Obter contato de atendimento humano da viagem' — retrieve a human support contact for a trip. That is clear and distinguishable from siblings like gover_obter_info_usuario or gover_consultar_minhas_viagens. It is not differentiated from potential lookalikes within the 90+ sibling list, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies this is used to get a human support contact when needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It names one alternative for large results (gover_ler_resultado), which is a routing hint, but does not clarify when to prefer this tool over a generic contact or info tool. Usage is implied, not stated.

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