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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions, does not alter business records, forbids credentials as arguments, and instructs that new payment data must be entered only in the Gover portal. These are useful behavioral constraints not present in the readOnly/openWorld annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is compact and front-loads the tool's scope before moving to constraints and follow-up steps. Each sentence carries a distinct instruction, though the first sentence is a redundant restatement of the title and could be removed without loss.

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 tool has a large nested schema with 0% description coverage and no output schema. The description covers auth and behavioral constraints but omits any explanation of the formData fields, the 'tipo' enum, required parameters, or what a successful validation result contains. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing at the nested input shape.

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 provides no parameter-level information. With 8 parameters, one nested object containing dozens of fields, and enum-bearing fields like 'tipo' and 'produtosAtivos,' the description should explain how to populate formData and what 'tipo' codes mean. It leaves the agent with no semantic guidance beyond 'fields follow the API contract.'

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 opens with 'Validar criterios de pesquisa aerea,' which essentially restates the tool name and title without explaining what validation does or returns. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like gover_validar_pesquisa_hotel or gover_iniciar_pesquisa_aerea. An agent cannot tell whether this validates syntax, business rules, or availability.

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 one concrete usage hint: 'Para resultados extensos, use gover_ler_resultado com o resultadoId retornado,' which tells the agent what to do when output is large. However, there is no guidance on when to call this tool versus gover_iniciar_pesquisa_aerea, gover_buscar_voos, or gover_validar_pesquisa_hotel. Usage is only implied by the name.

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