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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds context annotations cannot carry: it uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions, it never mutates business records, credentials must never be passed as arguments, and new payment data must go through the Gover portal. These are meaningful scope and security constraints beyond the structured fields.

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?

Short numbered-style sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the operational constraints and the pagination pointer. Each sentence carries a distinct rule; only the portal/payment note is somewhat tangential to invoking the tool.

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 it correctly points at the resultadoId handoff for large payloads, which covers the pagination story. However, with 0% schema coverage on the parameters and no guidance on mutual exclusivity of the lookup keys, an agent still cannot construct a fully informed call.

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% for three parameters (data, clienteId, localizador). The description partially compensates by naming 'localizador' and 'data' as the query keys, but it never explains clienteId, the expected date format, or whether the keys combine or are alternatives.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Consultar) and resource (locacao) plus the two lookup keys (localizador or data), so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It is not explicitly differentiated from lookalike siblings such as gover_consultar_localizador_aereo or gover_consultar_solicitacao, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 real routing rule — for large results use gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId — which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about when to prefer this tool over gover_consultar_solicitacao, gover_buscar_solicitacao, or the aereo locator variant, leaving the main sibling choice to inference.

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