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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so redundancy about 'nao altera registros' earns little. What the description adds is genuinely beyond the annotations: the resultadoId pagination handoff to gover_ler_resultado, the account/permission scoping, and the constraint that payment data is filled only in the Gover portal.

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?

Six short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no paragraph bloat. The credential warning and payment-portal note are borderline boilerplate, but the resultadoId guidance earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 tool with a nested 8-parameter schema at 0% description coverage and no output schema, the description is thin on how to actually build the request. It covers auth, safety and large-result handling, but leaves the agent with no help constructing formData fields such as hotelId, quartos, or the hospedesAssociados array.

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 8 parameters (including the nested formData object), and the only parameter-related text is 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which explains nothing about hotelId, quartos, hospedesAssociados, or any other field. It defers rather than compensates.

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 states a specific verb (consultar) and resource scope (hospedes por quarto), which is clearer than a bare restatement of the title. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like gover_consultar_hospedagem or gover_pesquisar_passageiros, so an agent must still infer which query surface is appropriate.

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 concrete routing rule — 'Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado' — which is a real alternative-tool pointer, plus auth constraints ('usa exclusivamente a conta Gover conectada'). But there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance against the many other consultar/pesquisar siblings.

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