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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it operates exclusively under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, does not modify business records, and requires that credentials never be passed as arguments. The resultadoId/pagination handoff to gover_ler_resultado is also a meaningful trait.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct rule (auth scoping, no writes, no credential args, pagination, payment-data boundary). The sentence "Os campos seguem o contrato da API" is filler that adds no information, slightly diluting an otherwise 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers auth and the large-result path adequately, but with nine parameters at 0% schema coverage it leaves an agent without any guidance on what the filters mean. It is adequate on operations and weak on inputs.

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% for nine parameters, and the description compensates with only "Os campos seguem o contrato da API," which defers rather than explains. The sole required parameter (solicitacaoId) is hinted at by "na solicitacao," but the eight optional filters (termo, cidadeId, clientId, servicoId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto, finalidadeViagemId) remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 first sentence names a clear verb+resource ("Consultar veiculos ofertados") scoped to a solicitation, so an agent knows this lists offered vehicles within an existing request. However, it essentially restates the title and gives no differentiation from close siblings like gover_consultar_hoteis_ofertados, gover_consultar_itens_ofertados, or gover_buscar_veiculos.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it points to gover_ler_resultado when results are extensive and warns that new payment data belongs only in the Gover portal. There is no explicit when-to-use-this vs gover_buscar_veiculos or gover_consultar_locacao, so the agent must infer the routing.

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