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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real context: it runs exclusively against the connected Gover account and its API permissions, does not alter business records, and must never receive credentials or auth identity as arguments. The note that new payment data belongs only in the Gover portal is useful operational guidance beyond the 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?

It is short and front-loads the action, then layers constraints and the pagination escape hatch. A couple of sentences are boilerplate warnings, but nothing is redundant enough to hurt.

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 with no output schema, the description correctly points large results to gover_ler_resultado, which is important. However, it leaves the only input (a nested form with three fields) unexplained, so an agent lacks enough to construct a correct call.

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% and the single nested 'form' object contains undocumented fields (termo, opcaoId, clienteId). The description only says "Os campos seguem o contrato da API," which adds no meaning about what any field does or how to build the search filter.

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 restates the title ("Pesquisar centros de custo") without expanding on scope. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like gover_consultar_centro_custo, gover_pesquisar_centros_custo_debito, or gover_consultar_centro_custo, so an agent cannot tell 'pesquisar' apart from 'consultar' from the text 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 provides one concrete routing rule: for extensive results use gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId. But it never says when to choose this over the sibling consult/pesquisar cost-center tools, leaving the main selection decision implicit.

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