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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful non-obvious constraints: it exclusively uses the connected Gover account and its API permissions, does not mutate business records, and credentials/auth identity must never be passed as arguments. However, it omits pagination/result-size behavior and error conditions.

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?

Six short sentences; the operational rules (no credentials, no business mutations, use gover_ler_resultado for long results, new payment data only in the Gover portal) are front-loaded after the purpose line. No filler, though the purpose line is redundant with the title.

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, 8-parameter (nested formData) tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the return shape (resultadoId flow is hinted) and the meaning of the nested parameters, which are entirely undocumented. It leaves the agent without enough to build a correct request beyond guessing at the API contract.

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 8 parameters including a required nested formData object with 12 subfields. The description offers no per-parameter meaning – no hint that formData.origem/destino drive the seat availability, or how reservaId, trechoId, segmentoId relate. It says only 'the fields follow the API contract', which is precisely the documentation that is missing.

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 is a tautology that restates the title verbatim ('Obter opcoes de selecao de assentos'). It never states which seat-selection step this is, what inputs (origem/destino/reservaId) drive it, or how it differs from siblings like gover_consultar_mapa_assentos, gover_listar_passageiros_assentos, or gover_marcar_assentos. An agent cannot tell this apart from those tools without opening schemas.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not mention the related seat tools (listar_localizadores_assentos, listar_passageiros_assentos, consultar_mapa_assentos, marcar_assentos) that an agent must disambiguate against. The only workflow hint is 'use gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId', which is partially useful but not an invocation guideline.

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