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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: it runs exclusively under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, never accepts credentials as arguments, and streams large results via resultadoId. 'Nao altera registros de negocio' is redundant with destructiveHint=false but harmless.

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 and front-loaded, which is good. But the closing sentence about payment data (Dados de pagamento novos...) is unrelated to a read-only points-expiration query and reads as boilerplate, diluting focus.

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 7-parameter query with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain what the filter fields select and what is returned. It covers safety and pagination reasonably but leaves the entire input contract unexplained, which is a major gap.

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 coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description's only nod to them is 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which conveys no meaning. Nothing explains termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto, or finalidadeViagemId, leaving fully undocumented inputs for a search-style tool.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Consultar expiracao dos pontos'), which is more precise than sibling gover_consultar_pontuacao (points balance vs. expiration). However, it largely restates the tool title and never names or contrasts with the closest sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 explicit routing rule: for extensive results use gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId, and it warns that new payment data belongs only in the portal. There is still no guidance on when to choose this over gover_consultar_pontuacao or what preconditions (permissions, account state) apply.

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