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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that the call only prepára and does not execute, that it operates solely under the connected account's API permissions, that credentials must never be passed as arguments, and that a confirmation step gates execution. This is substantial behavioral context the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are individually compact, but the text packs several distinct instructions (auth, confirmation workflow, result pagination, payment data) into one paragraph without structural separation, slightly blurring emphasis.

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?

The two-phase workflow, auth constraints, and result-handling pointer are complete for invocation flow, but for a tool with 8 undocumented parameters and a nested object and no output schema, the absence of any field-level explanation leaves a meaningful gap. The mention of resultadoId partially hints at output behavior.

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% across 8 parameters, including a nested rq object, and the description adds essentially nothing: "Os campos seguem o contrato da API" defers to an external contract rather than explaining fields. The only parameter-relevant guidance is a prohibition on passing credentials, which does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Solicitar cotacao de melhor preco") and immediately clarifies the two-phase nature ("Prepara a acao, sem executa-la"), which sets it apart from the confirm sibling. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from close relatives like gover_solicitar_comparativo_precos or gover_cotar_voos.

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 gives explicit sequencing: show parameters to the user, and only after explicit confirmation call gover_confirmar_operacao. It also routes extensive-results handling to gover_ler_resultado with resultadoId, and directs new payment data to the Gover portal. When/when-not and named alternatives are all present.

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