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

Annotations already disclose read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context about accent/typo tolerance and the 'ambiguous' output flag, including how to respond when it occurs. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 concise sentences in Portuguese, front-loaded with the core conversion, followed by usage, ambiguity handling, and an alternative-tool pointer. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists to define the return structure and annotations cover the safety profile, the description covers the key decision points: what it does, when to use it, how to deal with ambiguity, and where to get city statistics instead. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100% schema description coverage, the parameter meaning is already fully documented. The description only reinforces that city accepts misspellings and accents, which is a minor extension of the schema's 'como a pessoa escreveu'. It doesn't clarify the state parameter's disambiguation role beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: it converts a city name to the official catalog slug. It also frames this as a prerequisite for other searches, distinguishing it from siblings like search_pets and get_city_stats.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use antes das outras buscas quando a pessoa citar uma cidade', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also routes city statistics away with 'Para os números da cidade, use as estatísticas', and the ambiguous-result rule advises the agent to ask or infer, never guess.

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