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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an Enterprise plan requirement, a setup step (generate a key at a URL), real-time delivery, and the data nature (georeferenced purchase intent). It does not cover side effects, rate limits, return format, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the lock/plan requirement and the core purpose. The setup instruction is brief and directly actionable. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps. It does not explain what 'segment' does, what a returned lead looks like, how results are delivered (streaming vs polling), or any rate limits, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema has one parameter ('segment') with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. No meaning, format, allowed values, or effect of 'segment' is provided, so the description does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: 'Entrega leads quentes em tempo real' (delivers hot leads in real time). It also specifies the lead type (georeferenced purchase intent) and target audience (partner merchants), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like product search, store listing, and local negotiation.

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 a clear precondition ('Requer plano Enterprise') and target audience ('para lojistas parceiros'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not compare against or route to alternatives like buscar_produtos_por_contexto, listar_lojas, or negociar_local, nor does it state when not to use it.

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