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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, it discloses result ordering (by recent publication, no quality ranking), input rejection rules (no CEP/neighborhood/coordinates, no distance calculation, no location inference), and result semantics (distinguishes an empty list from a technical failure). That is substantial behavioral context the annotations do not 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 purpose followed by behavior and exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described. The description still covers inputs, ordering, exclusions, and the empty-vs-error distinction, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly unstated.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that both values come from the person in the conversation and by explicitly rejecting address-level inputs (CEP, bairro, coordinates), which constrains how the two parameters should be populated.

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) scoped by cidade and UF, so an agent immediately knows this is a search/read operation. The sibling tools are all cost/salary calculators, and this description makes the search function unambiguous.

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 clear context for use: query public profiles using the city and state provided by the person in the conversation. It also rules out CEP, neighborhood, and coordinates. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling is a search alternative, so no exclusion is needed.

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