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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior by clarifying the output is a ranked list and that ordering can be reversed, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as default limits or result structure; the schema covers parameter-level 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the primary action stated first and the use case in a short second sentence. There is no filler or redundant content, and every sentence contributes useful context.

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 description, combined with the rich schema and annotations, is enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use it. It could be slightly more complete by naming sibling alternatives or clarifying that the result includes the m² price value, but the core invocation context is adequately covered.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, including enums, defaults, and the 'limite' range. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lista os bairros de uma cidade ordenados pelo preço do m²', with explicit mention of sort direction ('do mais caro ao mais barato ou o inverso'). It also states the intended use case, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as preco_m2 or comparar.

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 phrase 'Serve para responder qual é o bairro mais caro ou mais barato' gives a clear intended application for the tool. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or what alternatives to prefer, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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