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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully reinforces that no solicitation is created and no cart is mutated, but adds nothing about the shape of what is returned or any rate/scope limits. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two tight sentences, the positive scope front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 planning tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the safety side is covered, but the three zero-documented parameters and the vague 'campos necessários' leave the agent without enough to know exactly what inputs to supply. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 and it largely does not. It mentions passageiros and centros de custo, loosely mapping to the passageiros array and its centroCustoId, but leaves unidadeId and finalidadeViagemId entirely unexplained and gives no syntax, format, or validation hints.

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 (consulta) and the resources gathered (passageiros, centros de custo, regras, campos) with the explicit goal of preparing a cotação. This separates it from pure lookups, but it does not name or differentiate from siblings like gover_consultar_regra_negocio or gover_pesquisar_passageiros that also surface this data.

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 second sentence gives a clear when-not boundary: it does not create a solicitação nor alter the cart, telling the agent to route creation to gover_criar_solicitacao/gover_iniciar_solicitacao. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it's context rather than full routing.

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