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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it does not change business records and never accepts credentials, which aligns with annotations but adds little beyond them. It doesn't explain rate limits or detailed output behavior.

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?

Front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, then provides supplementary notes. The text is reasonably concise and avoids unnecessary repetition, though some sentences like the credential warning are somewhat boilerplate.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It mentions pagination handling but doesn't explain return format or parameter details. It covers security and mutation behavior adequately but misses parameter semantics.

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 there are 10 parameters. The description only vaguely says 'fields follow the API contract', providing no meaning for parameters like tipo, termo, cidadeId, etc. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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+resource: consult items offered for a request. This distinguishes it from related siblings like gover_consultar_hoteis_ofertados and gover_consultar_veiculos_ofertados, which cover different item types. It lacks explicit disambiguation, but the resource is clear.

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?

Implies usage context: uses the connected Gover account and permissions. It provides some guidance on pagination via gover_ler_resultado, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs other consult tools. No when-not guidance.

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