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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds real behavioral context: results are consent-based, ordered by recent publication with no quality ranking, distance is never computed, and an empty list is explicitly distinguished from a technical failure. That last point is an error-semantics disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then ordering, then exclusions. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint or return-behavior fact; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: input source, accepted keys, rejected location forms, ordering semantics, and empty-vs-error behavior. Output format details can safely be left to the output schema.

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 baseline is 3; the description still adds value by stating where the values come from (informadas pela pessoa na conversa) and that cidade means the city without address or neighborhood, reinforcing the exclusion of bairro/CEP inputs. It stops short of format guidance for UF beyond what the schema pattern already gives.

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 (consulta) and resource (perfis públicos consentidos) with the exact scoping keys (cidade e UF). The ordering rule (por publicação recente, sem ranking de qualidade) further pins down what the tool returns, and the sibling calculators (custo/salário) are clearly a different job.

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 explicit when-not constraints: não aceita CEP, bairro ou coordenadas, não calcula distância, não infere localização — directly preventing the most likely misuse of a location-style query. It does not name a sibling alternative, but no sibling overlaps this domain, so the gap is minor rather than misleading.

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