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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine operational context: it runs only under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, and it explicitly forbids passing credentials or auth identity as arguments — a real constraint not in the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the resultadoId guidance is useful, but the trailing sentence about payment data in the Gover portal is tangential to invoking this read tool, and the body is a run of loosely related sentences rather than a tight structure.

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 a 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description does help by explaining the resultadoId continuation path, but it leaves every parameter's meaning undefined and gives no hint of what the returned score payload contains. Adequate at the boundary, with clear gaps.

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 7 parameters (termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto, finalidadeViagemId), and the description only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which conveys no meaning. The obligation to compensate for the coverage gap is unmet.

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 and resource ('Consultar pontuacao detalhada do usuario'), so the agent knows it reads a points/score entity. It does not differentiate from near-siblings like gover_consultar_expiracao_pontos or gover_obter_info_usuario, so it falls short of 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?

Gives one concrete routing rule: for extensive results, call gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId. However it never says when to choose this tool over gover_consultar_expiracao_pontos or other consultar_* siblings, leaving the main selection decision to inference.

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