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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it discloses the interactive-card output, that it recomputes to show current data, and a fallback to the state reference salary labeled as an example when salário bruto is missing. It also explicitly scopes out distance and quality scoring, which prevents misuse.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then prerequisites, then fallback behavior, then exclusions, with no filler. It is slightly dense in one sentence combining query and calculation, but every sentence carries information.

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 and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to cover prerequisites, fallback semantics and scope limits, all of which it does. The only real omission is routing guidance against the closely related sibling tools.

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, but the description adds a semantic default not visible in the schema: when salarioBruto is absent it substitutes the current state reference as an explicitly labeled example. That meaningfully changes how an agent should supply or omit the parameter.

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 concrete verb and resource: queries consented public profiles and computes hiring cost in an interactive card. It is specific about what it produces, but it overlaps conceptually with the siblings buscar_babas_publicas and calcular_custo_baba without naming or distinguishing itself from 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?

It gives prerequisites (city and UF supplied by the person in conversation) and one explicit exclusion (no distance calculation, no quality ranking), which implies when it applies. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over buscar_babas_publicas or calcular_custo_baba, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent faces with these siblings.

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