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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not execute the action, requires explicit user confirmation, uses only the connected Gover account permissions, and forbids passing credentials as arguments. This clarifies the confirm-then-execute pattern. It notes the eventual destructive/openWorld nature only implicitly, and does not reconcile with destructiveHint=true, leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and then gives discrete, purposeful sentences on scope, confirmation, credential hygiene, field contract, and result retrieval. It is appropriately sized but includes a mildly redundant sentence about payment data that does not map to any parameter.

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?

Covers the operational workflow, confirmation gate, credential handling, and result retrieval, which is solid for a preparation tool with no output schema. However, with 8 completely undocumented parameters it leaves the agent unable to determine what many fields mean, so it is only minimally complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description offers only 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which conveys no meaning for any of the 8 parameters (type enum, termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto, finalidadeViagemId). With an entirely undocumented schema, the description should compensate but does not explain a single field.

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 ('Solicitar comparativo de precos') and the title clarifies this is the preparation step ('Preparar'), which distinguishes it as the pre-execution stage. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly-named siblings such as gover_solicitar_melhor_preco or gover_comparar_opcoes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear usage flow: prepare the action without executing it, show parameters to the user, and only after explicit confirmation call gover_confirmar_operacao. It also routes long results to gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultadoId, naming concrete alternatives. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this versus the other comparison-related tools.

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