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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds important context: uses exclusively the connected Gover account, never include credentials as arguments, payment data must be filled only in the Gover portal. This goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the removal is destructive or irreversible, but the 'preparar' action and confirmation requirement imply it.

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?

Multiple short sentences are front-loaded with the core action and important constraints. Some sentences are slightly redundant (e.g., 'Prepara a acao, sem executa-la' is repeated conceptually by later instruction), but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: account usage, two-step flow, credential handling, and result retrieval. It misses detailed parameter meanings, which is a gap, but overall provides enough context for safe 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% for 8 parameters. The description mentions 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' but provides no specific meaning for parameters like itemId, termo, cidadeId, etc. This leaves the agent without guidance on what values to provide beyond the schema types. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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+resource: remove an item from the cart. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like gover_adicionar_*_carrinho or gover_confirmar_operacao, but the 'preparar' prefix and removal action are sufficient to differentiate.

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?

Provides clear context: prepares the action without executing, requires explicit user confirmation, then use gover_confirmar_operacao. Also mentions using gover_ler_resultado for extensive results. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the two-step flow is well described.

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