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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine non-schema context: it runs under the connected Gover account and its API permissions, never accepts credentials/identity as arguments, and defers large result sets to a resultId follow-up. This is useful security and pagination behavior 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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded, but several sentences are low-value: 'Nao altera registros de negocio' merely restates the readOnly annotation, and 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' is filler that consumes space without informing. Moderately sized with avoidable redundancy.

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 7-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers auth context, the no-mutation guarantee, pagination via resultadoId, and a payment-data boundary, so it is not empty. It still leaves every parameter undocumented, which is the main gap 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all seven parameters (termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto, finalidadeViagemId). It instead offers only 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which explains nothing about meaning, format, or which filters are combinable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search employees and passengers) that an agent can act on immediately, and the name/title agree. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-siblings like gover_pesquisar_funcionarios or gover_consultar_funcionario, leaving overlap ambiguity about when this tool's 'funcionarios' scope is the right one.

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 gives one explicit routing rule (for extensive results use gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId) and a boundary (new payment data goes through the Gover portal). But it never says when to choose this tool over the many overlapping search/consult siblings, so selection guidance is only partial.

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