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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it runs exclusively under the connected Gover account's API permissions, it only prepares the action, and it routes large results to gover_ler_resultado. It also warns that new payment data must be entered in the Gover portal, not here. The prepare/confirm contract is the key trait an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the prepare-only constraint, then the confirmation and result-handling steps. Multiple short sentences each carry a distinct instruction with little waste.

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?

Covers the workflow, auth source, and result handling well, and output-schema absence is moot given the gover_ler_resultado pointer. However, for a schema with this many undocumented nested fields it leaves parameter completion largely to the caller's guesswork.

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% on a very large nested object (~40 form fields), so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' and warns against passing credentials, adding essentially no meaning about the actual fields (nome, cpf, cargo, opcaoId, etc.).

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+resource ('Incluir funcionario') and clarifies it is a prepare-only step ('Prepara a acao, sem executa-la'), which distinguishes it from the commit step (gover_confirmar_operacao) and from gover_alterar_funcionario. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the altering/consulting siblings.

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?

Gives a clear workflow: show parameters to the user, then only after explicit confirmation call gover_confirmar_operacao, and never pass credentials as arguments. This is strong when-to-use guidance, though there is no explicit exclusion of alternatives beyond the confirm step.

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