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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds rich context: it does not touch the database, ClienteId and UsuarioId are populated from the authenticated session and will not appear as filters, omitted filter means 'all', and the columns come from a catalog and may diverge from execution results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single dense paragraph with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral nuance (auth-filled filters, omitted-filter semantics, possible schema divergence, read-only guarantee). Nothing looks 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?

For a simple read-only metadata tool with one parameter and no output schema, it is complete. It covers what is returned (filters and columns), how to source the input (gover_listar_relatorios), interpretation pitfalls (omitted filter, no invented values), and data-fidelity warnings. Together with the annotations, an agent can invoke it correctly.

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 already covers the 'chave' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by telling the agent to obtain the Chave via gover_listar_relatorios and providing an example, which helps the agent chain the tools correctly.

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 the specific verb 'Mostra' (shows) and the exact resources: the filters a report accepts and the columns it delivers. It is clearly distinct from execution/list siblings such as gover_executar_relatorio and gover_listar_relatorios, and the title reinforces the scope (metadata of an approved report).

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 tells the agent where to get the required key ('Obtenha em gover_listar_relatorios') and warns against inventing filter values ('não invente valores'). It implies use-before-execution via the caveat that the listed columns may diverge from those actually returned at runtime, but it never explicitly names gover_executar_relatorio as the follow-up alternative.

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