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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds valuable context: the tool gathers internal evidence, produces a simple-language answer, and explicitly forbids showing code. This goes beyond annotation metadata and helps the agent set correct expectations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded, and the 'never show code' rule is a valuable constraint for the response. It could be slightly tighter, but it remains appropriately sized and structured.

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 read-only Q&A tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential context: purpose, response style, and availability without an account. It doesn't define 'evidências internas' in depth, but that level of detail is not required to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and both 'pergunta' and 'maxEvidencias' already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds only a semantic hint that 'pergunta' concerns system behavior; it does not expand on 'maxEvidencias'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recebe uma dúvida'), defines the resource ('funcionamento do Gover'), and states the deliverable: explain the business rule in simple language, never showing code. This clearly differentiates it from data-query siblings like gover_executar_consulta and gover_explorar_estrutura.

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 clearly specifies when to use the tool: when there is a doubt about how Gover works and a plain-language explanation is needed. It also adds a useful condition ('Disponível sem conexão de conta neste ambiente'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.