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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds valuable behavior: it never mutates business records, forbids passing credentials as arguments, and discloses the async resultadoId handoff pattern. These are real traits beyond the annotations, though no mention of scoping, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 scope and constraints are front-loaded in the first sentence and the sentences are mostly non-redundant, each adding a distinct rule (account scope, no mutation, no credentials, result handoff). It is slightly padded with a handful of separate short sentences that could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the resultadoId/async pagination path and the account-scope behavior. However, for a 7-param tool it leaves parameter semantics entirely unexplained, so it is only partially complete for correct invocation.

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?

There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no per-parameter meaning at all, only a vague 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API'. With fields like termo, cidadeId, clientId, and tipoCentroDeCusto undocumented, an agent cannot infer how to use them; 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 specific verb ('Consultar') and resource ('informacoes do usuario conectado'), making the scope clear. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from potential siblings like gover_verificar_sessao or gover_consultar_painel, which an agent might confuse with a user/session info lookup.

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 names an alternative for a specific condition ('Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId'), and points to the Gover portal for payment data, which is useful routing. But it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over other consulting siblings, leaving the primary usage context implied.

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