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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: it runs exclusively under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, credentials/identity must never be passed as arguments, and large payloads are paginated out through gover_ler_resultado with a resultadoId. That truncation/continuation contract is information the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Five short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with no padding; each sentence carries a distinct instruction (auth scope, no mutation, no credentials, pagination handoff, payment-data exclusion). Slightly boilerplate in places but efficient.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object query tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without any guidance on how to populate the arguments or which field combination identifies a locator. The resultadoId pagination hint is helpful, but the core parameter-usage gap remains significant.

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 8 parameters (including a nested formData object), so the description must carry the burden and it does not. Saying 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' defers to an external contract rather than explaining what termo, cidadeId, segmentoId, localizador, solicitacaoId and the other fields mean or which are needed.

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 (retrieve information about the air locator/PNR) and is clearly a read query, distinguishing it from mutation siblings like gover_adicionar_voo_carrinho. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent read tools such as gover_consultar_viagem_aerea or gover_consultar_solicitacao, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 real routing guidance: extensive results should be fetched via gover_ler_resultado using the returned resultadoId, and new payment data must be entered only in the Gover portal (i.e., not here). It stops short of stating explicit preconditions or naming the sibling read tools it competes with.

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