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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it operates under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, never accepts credentials/auth identity as arguments, and requires the gover_ler_resultado follow-up for large payloads. This is useful operational detail rather than restating the annotations.

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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but the paragraph then mixes security boilerplate ('Nunca informe credenciais') with guidance that appears unrelated to a read-by-ID lookup ('Dados de pagamento novos devem ser preenchidos somente no portal Gover'). Some sentences do not clearly earn their place.

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 simple read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the account/permission note and the large-result routing are adequate. However, with a 0%-described nested schema and no output schema, the total failure to explain the form fields leaves an agent without enough to build the request 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 single nested 'form' object carries three undocumented fields (opcaoId, clienteId, funcionarioId). The description's only contribution is 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which defers meaning rather than explaining any field, 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 plus scope: 'Consultar funcionario por ID'. This is distinguishable from the search-oriented sibling gover_pesquisar_funcionarios, though the description never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast. Clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives an explicit routing condition: 'Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado', naming the alternative and when to switch to it. It does not, however, say when to use this lookup versus gover_pesquisar_funcionarios, so no exclusions are stated.

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