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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces safety with 'Nao altera registros de negocio' and adds a relevant security constraint about credentials/identity. This is helpful added context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result size limits, or what auth/permission failures look like. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is compact and front-loads the core purpose, followed by safety, routing, and security notes in short sentences. It is efficient overall, though the opening sentence duplicates the title and the API-contract sentence is low value.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimal but covers safety (non-destructive, auth-bound) and a fallback path to gover_ler_resultado. It still leaves the agent without any explanation of parameter meanings or expected result shape, so it is only partially complete.

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, so the description carries the full burden of explaining them. It only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which is uninformative and defers to an external contract, leaving names like 'termo', 'tipoOpcao', 'isRoundTrip', and 'tipoCentroDeCusto' undocumented for an agent.

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 restates the title almost verbatim ('Consultar resultados da pesquisa aerea'), which is essentially a tautology relative to the name/title. It does not specify what kind of results (flight options, prices, availability) or how it differs from siblings like gover_buscar_voos, gover_consultar_viagem_aerea, or gover_ler_resultado beyond a brief mention of the latter for large payloads.

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 provides one conditional routing rule: 'Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado', which is a useful pointer to a sibling. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over gover_buscar_voos, gover_cotar_voos, or gover_iniciar_pesquisa_aerea, leaving selection ambiguous.

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