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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions, it never mutates business records, credentials/auth identity must never be passed as arguments, and large results come back via a resultadoId for gover_ler_resultado. The 'no credentials as arguments' constraint is a real behavioral disclosure annotations cannot express.

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?

Eight short sentences, purpose front-loaded, and most carry operational value (auth constraints, large-result handoff). But 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' is filler that occupies space without informing, and the boilerplate around the Gover account and portal duplicates itself somewhat.

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 lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description adequately explains auth scope and how to fetch large results. Its real gap is the nested 'form' argument, which is entirely undocumented anywhere despite being the sole required input. An agent knows how to behave but not what to send.

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 a nested 'form' object containing opcaoId, clienteId, unidadeId and departamento, so the schema explains nothing. The description's only contribution is 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which adds no meaning for any of the four fields (required-ness, format, or which one scopes to the unit). The description 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?

The first sentence restates the tool title almost verbatim ('Consultar departamentos por unidade'), so the purpose is a lookup of departments scoped to a unit, which is clear enough as a verb+resource. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like gover_consultar_departamento, gover_pesquisar_departamentos, or gover_consultar_unidade. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which department-query tool 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?

Two usage signals exist: 'Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado' names a follow-up tool and the trigger, and 'Dados de pagamento novos devem ser preenchidos somente no portal Gover' implies a when-not-to-use boundary. Neither addresses which sibling query tool to prefer, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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