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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context: it's a two-step prepare/confirm flow, and it explicitly forbids passing credentials/identity as arguments. It also mentions data must be filled in the Gover portal. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't explicitly warn about the destructive nature. With annotations covering safety, the description adds useful workflow and security context.

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 information is front-loaded: purpose, then workflow, then constraints. It's a bit dense but each sentence serves a distinct instruction. No obvious filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides workflow guidance but leaves the actual form fields entirely unexplained. An agent would need to infer the required structure from the schema. The description is adequate for process but incomplete for parameter comprehension.

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 coverage is 0%, so all parameter meaning rests on the schema structure with no descriptions. The description only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' – it does not explain any of the nested fields like opcaoId, formData, or what acao/ativo/etc. mean. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Incluir centro de custo' and clarifies it only *prepares* the action ('Prepara a acao, sem executa-la'), distinguishing it from a hypothetical execute tool. Sibling tools like gover_alterar_centro_custo and gover_consultar_centro_custo are differentiated by the include/prepare semantics.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs the alternative: this prepares, then only after explicit confirmation should the agent call gover_confirmar_operacao. Also directs to gover_ler_resultado for extensive results. This is a complete workflow instruction.

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