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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: it uses only the connected Gover account, doesn't change business records, and warns against including credentials. However, it doesn't explain rate limits or pagination behavior beyond suggesting gover_ler_resultado for large results.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes multiple short sentences that each convey a piece of information, though one sentence about payment data seems tangential and could be omitted for better focus.

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?

The tool is a read-only search with seven parameters and no output schema. The description covers high-level behavior but lacks crucial details about parameter semantics and how to handle results (e.g., structure of returned data). It mentions using gover_ler_resultado for extensive results, which is helpful, but overall completeness is minimal.

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%, so the description must compensate for seven undocumented parameters. It only states 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API,' which adds no meaning. No parameter names, types, or constraints are described, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema which lacks descriptions.

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 and resource ('Pesquisar centros de custo de debito'), but the term 'debito' is not defined, leaving ambiguity about what 'debit cost centers' means compared to other cost center tools like gover_pesquisar_centros_custo or gover_consultar_centro_custo. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by its name, but the purpose is not fully clarified.

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 provides some context: 'Usa exclusivamente a conta Gover conectada' and indicates it doesn't alter records, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like gover_pesquisar_centros_custo or gover_consultar_centro_custo. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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