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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: it operates only through the connected Gover account and its API permissions, credentials must never be passed as arguments, and large results are retrieved via gover_ler_resultado using resultadoId. The 'no altera registros' clause is redundant with readOnlyHint but the rest is 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the overall length is moderate, but several sentences are boilerplate that repeats across sibling tools, and the 'Nao altera registros de negocio' statement duplicates what the annotations already guarantee.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the definition carries a heavy burden that it only partly meets. Auth, security and large-result handling are covered, but the parameters an agent must populate and the shape of the hotel results are absent.

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% across 9 parameters, and the description says only 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' — a generic statement that adds no meaning. Key inputs such as solicitacaoId, termo, cidadeId, servicoId and finalidadeViagemId are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Consultar hoteis ofertados na solicitacao'), clearly identifying a read of offered hotels tied to a request. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like gover_consultar_itens_ofertados or gover_consultar_veiculos_ofertados, leaving an agent to infer the boundary.

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 instruction: for extensive results, use gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId, which is genuinely useful. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this over gover_buscar_hoteis or the other *_ofertados tools, so usage is mostly implied.

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