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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful observability context — it states the returned fields (id, título com preço, página) despite there being no output schema — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three short sentences: what it searches, what it returns, and what to do next. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It stops just short of being maximally tight because the return-field sentence could be merged, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety; the description supplies the missing return-value information that would otherwise be absent without an output schema. Only pagination/result-size expectations are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a search endpoint.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines "query" and its Portuguese-language requirement. The description contributes only thematic examples ("air fryer", "fone bluetooth") that illustrate the kind of product string expected, which is marginal added value.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Pesquisa") and resource ("ofertas da Shopee Brasil") scoped to product search, with concrete query examples. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling buscar_ofertas, which by name sounds like an equivalent search, so an agent cannot confidently pick between them.

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 explicitly routes a follow-up action ("Use fetch com o id para os detalhes"), which is genuine usage guidance. But it gives no criteria for when to use this tool versus buscar_ofertas, ofertas_da_categoria, or ofertas_em_alta, so the choice among search siblings remains implicit.

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