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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds concrete context beyond them: the operation is scoped to the connected account's API permissions, it does not alter business records, and oversized results must be fetched via gover_ler_resultado with the resultadoId. That is genuinely useful disclosure, though response shape and any rate/limits are unmentioned.

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 text is compact and each sentence carries a distinct rule (account scope, no mutation, no credentials, result retrieval, payment data). Minor redundancy from restating the title in the first sentence, but no padding overall.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, credential handling and result paging adequately, but the seven undocumented parameters remain a real completeness hole. It is usable but not complete.

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 seven parameters (termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto, finalidadeViagemId), and the description offers only 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which explains nothing. It fails to compensate for the documentation gap, so an agent must guess at field meaning and filtering behavior.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Obter opcoes para locacao de veiculo'), so an agent knows it retrieves rental-car offers rather than performing a mutation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near neighbors such as gover_buscar_veiculos, gover_consultar_veiculos_ofertados or gover_iniciar_pesquisa_hotel, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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 real operational guidance (use only the connected Gover account and its permissions, never pass credentials, read large results with gover_ler_resultado using the returned resultadoId, enter new payment data only in the Gover portal). What it never states is when to choose this tool over the sibling search/cotacao tools, so selection guidance is only implied.

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