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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return fields, the no-query default (newest posts), and the required content language (Brazilian Portuguese).

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the resource, return fields, search syntax, and default behavior are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

An output schema exists so return structure need not be re-explained, and the description still covers language, search syntax, and default behavior. It omits any note on result count or pagination, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the `query` parameter is already documented, but the description adds real semantics: search terms should be short and in Portuguese, and omitting the optional parameter returns the newest posts rather than failing.

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 (search) and resource (buying guides and blog articles), names the source (Pechinha.ai blog), and enumerates returned fields. It is clearly separable from siblings like search_deals and get_product.

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 usage direction - search in Portuguese with short terms - and specifies the default behavior when `query` is omitted (newest posts). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as search_deals.

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