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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it confirms 'Nao altera registros de negocio', warns never to pass credentials as arguments, and explains the pagination handoff to gover_ler_resultado for large results. These are useful operational details that annotations alone do not provide.

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 in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences cover auth, safety, pagination, and a payment rule. Most sentences earn their place, though 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' is filler and could be dropped.

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 simple read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers authentication context, non-mutation, pagination, and a domain restriction. The main missing piece is differentiation from sibling lookup tools like gover_detalhar_solicitacao_completa, but the core callable information is largely present.

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 names solicitacaoId in the first sentence, implying it identifies the request, but it never explains the optional numeroInterno parameter, and the phrase 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' adds no usable semantic detail. One of two parameters is functionally 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 description states a clear verb and resource ('Consultar detalhes por solicitacaoId'), so an agent knows it fetches details for a given request ID. However, it does not distinguish this tool from several close siblings such as gover_detalhar_solicitacao_completa, gover_buscar_solicitacao, or gover_acompanhar_solicitacao, leaving the agent to infer which 'consultar' variant to pick.

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?

The description gives one explicit routing rule ('Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado') and one domain restriction (payment data must be entered only in the Gover portal). It does not say when to use this tool versus the many alternative solicitation lookup tools, so usage is only partially guided.

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