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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the resultadoId pagination handoff to gover_ler_resultado and the explicit 'never pass credentials/auth identity as arguments' constraint. It still omits return shape and result limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded purpose sentence is efficient, and the following sentences (account scope, no mutation, credential warning, resultadoId, payment note) each carry distinct operational value. It is slightly boilerplate-heavy but not padded.

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 tool with no output schema the safety story is adequate via annotations plus the credential/resultadoId notes, but the undocumented nested form parameter and the absence of any description of returned unit fields leave a significant informational 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% and the single parameter is a deeply nested 'form' object with ~9 undocumented fields (opcaoId, formData.nome, ativo, pagina, numLinha, clienteId, unidadeId, tipoUnidade, codigoInterno, grupoClienteId). The only guidance is 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which adds no semantic meaning and leaves the agent with no field-level help.

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 cadastro de unidades') that clearly signals a search over a unit registry, and the name aligns. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like gover_consultar_unidade (single-unit lookup) or gover_pesquisar_unidades_viagem, leaving overlap to inference.

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 the useful continuation rule for large results ('use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId') and a negative constraint about credentials/payment data, but never says when to prefer this tool over gover_consultar_unidade or the related pesquisar_unidades_viagem variant. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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