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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions, never alters business records, forbids passing credentials as arguments, and explains how to retrieve large result sets with gover_ler_resultado.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the paragraph contains compliance boilerplate such as the payment-data notice that is not clearly relevant to listing requests by status. Several sentences are useful, yet the description could be tightened without losing essential meaning.

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 tool with 19 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves parameter semantics almost entirely unexplained. It does provide important auth and large-result handling guidance, but it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently with the correct parameter values.

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?

There are 19 input parameters and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API,' which adds no meaning for any parameter, including the required statusWfId.

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 ('Listar solicitacoes') plus a clear filter ('por status de workflow'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like gover_listar_solicitacoes or gover_filtrar_solicitacoes, so sibling selection still requires 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?

The description gives operational constraints about the Gover account and credential handling, but it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gover_listar_solicitacoes or gover_filtrar_solicitacoes. The only routing guidance is for handling extensive results via gover_ler_resultado, not for choosing this tool.

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