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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, and the description adds context beyond them: the operation runs under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, credentials must never be passed as arguments, and large results are paginated via resultadoId. 'Nao altera registros de negocio' partly restates destructiveHint=false, but the auth and pagination disclosures are genuinely additive.

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 front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage and behavioral constraints in short sentences. Several sentences are boilerplate guardrails, but each carries a distinct instruction rather than filler, so the length is defensible.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains how to retrieve large result sets (resultadoId + gover_ler_resultado), covers the auth model and a payment-data exclusion, and all parameters are optional. The main gap is the undocumented clienteId and lack of parameter-level detail for an API-contract-driven tool.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only paraphrases two parameters ('localizador ou data') from their names and says nothing about clienteId. 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' is a non-answer, and no format or matching semantics (e.g. date-time shape, locator string format) are supplied.

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Consultar hospedagem') and names the two lookup keys (localizador or data), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as gover_consultar_minhas_viagens or gover_consultar_hoteis_ofertados, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 a conditional routing rule for large responses ('Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado') and a hard exclusion ('Dados de pagamento novos devem ser preenchidos somente no portal Gover'). It never states when to prefer this tool over other lodging/solicitation lookups, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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