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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it operates only under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, credentials must never be passed as arguments, and pagination goes through gover_ler_resultado. The 'no altera registros de negocio' clause merely duplicates readOnlyHint, holding it just below a 5.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the remaining sentences are short and functional, each carrying a distinct rule (auth, credentials, pagination, payment data). It is slightly padded by the redundant 'não altera registros' clause, but nothing is bloated.

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 11-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers auth behavior and pagination well enough, and annotations carry the safety profile. But it leaves the required identifiers and the overall return shape undocumented, so an agent cannot rely on it alone to invoke the tool correctly with non-obvious inputs.

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 11 parameters, including three required ones (reservaId, segmentoId, solicitacaoId) that are never explained. The only parameter-related statement, 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', is a non-answer that adds no meaning. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 first sentence 'Consultar mapa de assentos' states a verb+resource but is a verbatim restatement of the title, adding no distinguishing information. The crowded seat-related sibling set (gover_marcar_assentos, gover_consultar_assentos_selecionados, gover_iniciar_selecao_assentos, gover_listar_passageiros_assentos) is never addressed, so an agent gets only a vague sense of what this returns versus those tools.

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: for extensive results, call gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId. That is genuine usage guidance. However, it never explains when to prefer this over the adjacent seat tools (marcar/consultar_assentos_selecionados), so the selection context is only implied.

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