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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's value is in operational constraints: it uses the connected Gover account and its API permissions, never alters business records, and forbids passing credentials. It omits rate limits, pagination behavior, and error modes, so it is helpful but not complete.

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?

Six short sentences are front-loaded with purpose, then constraints and the large-result path. The security and payment-portal sentences are slightly tangential to tool invocation but still earn their place.

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 search tool with a complex nested schema and no output schema, the description covers auth source, read-only nature, and result truncation. It does not explain the required form.opcaoId, how filters map to search fields, or what the return contains, which an agent needs for correct calls.

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% for a nested form object with many fields, so the description compensates only by saying the fields follow the API contract. It adds no meaning for filter fields such as nome, ativo, pagina, numLinha, or incluirCamposGerenciais, leaving a significant 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?

Title/description state research of employee records (pesquisar cadastro de funcionarios), a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from closely named siblings like gover_consultar_funcionario or other pesquisar tools, leaving the agent to infer when a search vs. a lookup applies.

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 gover_ler_resultado as the follow-up for large results and states that new payment data must be entered in the Gover portal. It does not say when to choose this over gover_consultar_funcionario or identify prerequisites beyond the connected Gover account.

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