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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description gets credit for adding context beyond them: it discloses a truncation/hand-off behavior where large results are not returned inline but must be fetched via gover_ler_resultado. It also warns that credentials/auth identity must never be passed as arguments, which matters given the presence of id parameters.

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 first sentence just restates the title, and "Nao altera registros de negocio" largely duplicates destructiveHint=false. The genuinely informative sentences (account scope, credential warning, resultadoId hand-off, payment-data note) earn their place, but the front-loading is diluted by the redundant opening.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should carry more weight than it does: it never describes what "complete information" actually contains, nor how the three input selectors behave. The resultadoId hand-off is a helpful partial, but a 3-parameter read tool with no structured field documentation is only minimally covered.

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 3 parameters, and the description compensates with nothing more than "Os campos seguem o contrato da API", which explains no parameter. It never clarifies the distinction between solicitacaoId (required), numeroInterno, and clientesId, leaving the agent without guidance on how these selectors interact.

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 specific verb and resource ("Consultar informacoes completas da solicitacao") and the modifier "completas" hints at a fuller payload than a plain lookup. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the closely-named siblings gover_consultar_solicitacao and gover_buscar_solicitacao, leaving the agent to guess which of the three to call.

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?

It gives one concrete routing rule ("Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado") and states the account scope, which is useful. But it never says when to choose this over the other solicitacao-reading siblings, so the core selection decision is left implicit.

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