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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: authentication is exclusively via the connected Gover account, credentials must not be passed as arguments, and large results are handled through gover_ler_resultado with a resultadoId.

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 text is not excessively long, but several sentences are boilerplate or tangential, such as the payment-data note that is unrelated to a read-only trip query. The API contract sentence adds little and the overall structure could be tighter.

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 absence of an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers auth and result-pagination handling reasonably well. However, it leaves the three optional parameters largely unexplained and does not describe the normal return shape, so an agent still lacks information needed for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'solicitacao ou data', which loosely maps to two of the three parameters, but it never mentions 'clienteId' and gives no format, nullability, or combination semantics for any parameter, leaving the schema undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('Consultar') and resource ('viagens do passageiro logado') with scope qualifiers ('por solicitacao ou data'). It distinguishes the tool from generic consultation siblings through the 'passageiro logado' restriction, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for cases where a different query is needed.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated purpose and filter options. The description provides one explicit fallback ('Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado...'), but lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over other consultation siblings or when not to use it.

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