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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, but the description adds auth context ('usa exclusivamente a conta Gover conectada'), a security warning against passing credentials, and a large-result handoff pattern via resultadoId. It also notes that new payment data must be entered only in the Gover portal, which is useful domain policy despite being tangential.

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, but the description then stacks several policy statements, including a payment-data note that seems copied from a broader guideline. Some material is wasted or redundant with annotations, though the overall length is not extreme.

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 nested-object, ID-based lookup with no output schema, the description omits the critical mapping of nested fields and does not explain return values beyond a large-result handoff. It compensates somewhat with auth and safety context, but an agent still lacks enough to invoke the tool confidently.

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% and the single nested 'form' parameter contains opcaoId, clienteId, and unidadeId with no field-level documentation. The description only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which gives the agent no way to know which nested field is required or what each represents.

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 'Consultar' plus resource 'unidade' and qualifier 'por ID', which distinguishes it from sibling write tools like gover_alterar_unidade and search tools like gover_pesquisar_unidades. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the ID lookup scope is clear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over gover_pesquisar_unidades or other consultar tools. The only alternative mentioned is gover_ler_resultado for handling large results, which is a follow-up step rather than a selection criterion.

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