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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description goes beyond that with security-relevant behavior: never pass credentials/authentication identity as arguments, payment data must be entered only in the Gover portal, and it explicitly restates that no business records are altered. These constraints are genuinely useful operational context not present in the structured fields.

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 in the first sentence, followed by short, scannable constraint sentences. It is appropriately sized, though the API-contract filler sentence earns little.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers auth scoping, side-effect profile, and result pagination (resultadoId -> gover_ler_resultado), which is meaningful. However, with 0% parameter documentation and no guidance on what the tarifacao output contains, it remains incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 (termo, cidadeId, clientId, unidadeId, funcionarioId, tipoCentroDeCusto, finalidadeViagemId, umLocPorSolicitacao). The description's only comment, 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API,' adds no interpretable meaning for any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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: verifying pricing/tarifacao and conditions of cart items ('Verificar tarifacao e condicoes dos itens do carrinho'). An agent can grasp the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like gover_consultar_carrinho or gover_comparar_opcoes, which is where a 5 would require explicit differentiation.

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 establishes operating context (uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions) and handoff for large outputs via gover_ler_resultado with resultadoId. But it never says when to pick this tool over gover_consultar_carrinho or the comparison tools, so the when-to-use decision is left implicit.

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