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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context: it uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions, does not mutate business records, forbids passing credentials as arguments, and points to the pagination fallback tool. That is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond the structured 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 purpose is front-loaded and the sequence of sentences is economical and non-repetitive. It is slightly fragmented into short clauses but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description mentions the resultadoId handoff, which helps. But for a tool whose schema is a large nested object with zero field documentation, the description leaves an agent with almost no guidance on what to supply, so completeness is only minimally adequate.

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?

Eight parameters (including a deeply nested formData with passengers, cost centers and custom fields) carry 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API'. No parameter meaning, format, or required/optional semantics are explained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a clear verb+resource: retrieve the data and options needed to build a solicitation. It implicitly contrasts with the write-oriented sibling gover_criar_solicitacao (prep vs. creation), but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name/title alone.

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 one concrete routing hint ('Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId') and one exclusion (payment data only via the portal), which is more than nothing. However, it never says when to call this versus gover_criar_solicitacao or gover_consultar_solicitacao, so the core when-to-use decision is left implicit.

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