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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safe, non-mutating profile is known. The description reinforces this by asserting it does not create requests, select fares, or touch the cart, and that results come from an external API. It adds little beyond the annotations and says nothing about retry/rate-limit behavior, which is notable given idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the action is front-loaded, and the scoping exclusions follow immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the return shape is unspecified, but more importantly the description is silent on how to build the large nested formData object and which fields drive the quote. For a complex, high-parameter quote tool, this leaves an agent under-equipped to call it 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 only 33%, and only the top-level 'tentativas' param carries documentation. The description reduces the entire input to 'os critérios informados' and does not clarify any of the ~40 nested formData fields (origem, destino, dataIda, classe, etc.), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Pesquisa tarifas aéreas ... e reúne as ofertas retornadas pela API.' The second sentence explicitly negates creating, selecting, or altering the cart, which differentiates it from siblings like gover_criar_solicitacao and gover_adicionar_voo_carrinho without naming them.

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 only implied through the negations ('não cria solicitação, não seleciona tarifa e não altera o carrinho'), giving a rough sense of when not to use it. It never states the positive conditions that select this tool over the many related siblings such as gover_buscar_voos, gover_iniciar_pesquisa_aerea, or gover_validar_pesquisa_aerea.

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