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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — Portuguese-language content, whole-word plus stem plus semantic matching, possible keyword loss at 3+ words, and accessories matching the term. The enumerated result fields partly duplicate the output schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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-loaded with purpose and pagination defaults, then moves to matching semantics and filters in a logical order. Sentences are long and clause-heavy, so a few items (result-field inventory, multiple examples) could be trimmed, but nothing is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still covers language, matching behavior, ordering rules, pagination, and all filter families. An agent has everything required to call this correctly on the first try.

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 coverage is high (89%), yet the description still meaningfully extends it: `limit` default of 10 with a 25 cap, `sort` behavior (relevance vs newest unless overridden), `query` matching semantics with worked examples, and the mapping of budget/floor/range phrasing to `max_price`/`min_price`. This is value the schema alone would not convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Search active (not expired) deals on Pechincha.ai," which immediately separates it from get_deal (single deal), get_similar_deals, and search_guides (guides). The scoping word "active (not expired)" tells the agent exactly which population is returned.

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 concrete operating conditions: relevance ordering with `query`, newest ordering without it, and when to add `theme` (seasonal events, gifts, niches) or price bounds (budget, floor, range), pointing to list_themes as the slug source. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling such as check_product_url or get_deal over this tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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