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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by stating that it uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions, does not change business records, and should never receive credentials. It also clarifies that payment data must be entered in the Gover portal. These are useful behavioral constraints not covered by the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints.

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 description is compact and front-loads the purpose before ancillary notes about account, side effects, large results and payment data. It is efficient, though the repetition of the title is slightly redundant.

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?

Given 7 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers only account context and a result-handling hint, but it omits critical details about what the tool actually returns, how the returned resultId works, and what each parameter controls. It is partially complete but has clear gaps for a search-initiation tool.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but it only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' without explaining any parameter meaning. This leaves all parameters semantically undocumented in the tool definition.

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 title and first sentence state 'Obter opcoes para pesquisa de hoteis' and the description repeats it, which makes the purpose clear but still somewhat vague. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gover_validar_pesquisa_hotel, gover_iniciar_pesquisa_aerea or gover_buscar_hoteis, so an agent cannot easily distinguish its exact role.

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?

The description implies this is a preparation step before hotel search and mentions using gover_ler_resultado for large results, but it never states when to use this tool versus the closely related siblings such as gover_validar_pesquisa_hotel, gover_iniciar_pesquisa_aerea or gover_iniciar_pesquisa_veiculo. The guidance is only implicit.

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