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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a couple of genuine constraints (uses only the connected Gover account; must not receive credentials; new payment data only in the Gover portal), which is real value, but it omits what validation actually checks, how failures surface, and whether the call consumes quota or session state. With annotations carrying the safety signals, the description's contribution is thin and partly promotional.

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?

Six short sentences, no padding, and the credential warning is front-loaded early, which is good. But sentence one is redundant with the title and consumes space that should have gone to parameter or behavior detail, so the structure is efficient without being well-prioritized.

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 read-only validation tool with a deeply nested, undocumented 8-parameter schema, no output schema, and no field descriptions anywhere, the description should have explained the expected formData shape and the validation outcome. Instead it covers authentication hygiene and result pagination and stops there, leaving the core contract undocumented.

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 a required nested formData object with roughly twenty fields (checkIn, checkOut, destino, quartos, pageSize, produtoAtivos enum, etc.), plus seven top-level parameters. The description offers only 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which tells the agent nothing about any of them. This is a large gap the description was positioned to fill and does not.

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 a restatement of the title ('Validar criterios de hospedagem') and never states what the tool actually does with the lodging criteria or what it returns. Siblings like gover_iniciar_pesquisa_hotel and gover_consultar_hoteis_ofertados make the distinction between starting, validating, and reading a hotel search entirely unstated. An agent cannot tell from this text why validation is a separate step from search.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling hotel tools (gover_iniciar_pesquisa_hotel, gover_buscar_hoteis, gover_consultar_hospedagem). The only routing hint is that long results should be read via gover_ler_resultado with a resultId, which is about a downstream tool, not about when this one applies.

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