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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds domain value about what comes back (price with engraving, minimum quantity) but discloses nothing behavioral beyond that, such as result limits or pagination semantics.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and search scope before the return summary. No filler and nothing redundant with the surrounding structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the returned fields (title, SKU, link, image, unit price, minimum quantity), which is exactly the missing context an agent needs. Combined with the search scope and annotations, the definition is self-sufficient.

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 67% and 'limite' has no schema description, so the description partly compensates. Crucially it clarifies that the 'busca' string accepts name, type, material OR an SKU, going beyond the schema's example-only documentation.

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+resource ('Busca brindes no catálogo') and the search axis (texto por nome/tipo/material ou SKU), which clearly sets it apart from siblings like detalhes_produto, indicar_similares and listar_categorias. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use it (free-text or SKU lookup) and is a natural first step before detalhes_produto, but never names alternatives or exclusions explicitly. The only cross-tool hint ('slug vindo de listar_categorias') lives in the parameter schema, not the description.

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