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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's contribution is data-provenance semantics: every factual field carries a status, `estimativa` must never be cited as fact, `chegada.estado` may be null and `preco.v` is source text rather than a number. That is substantive guidance an agent would otherwise get wrong, especially with no output schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the tool's scope and mode split, ending with the most consequential caveat. The semicolon-chained clauses and parenthetical lists make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, but no sentence is filler.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the modes, filters, and the interpretation of returned fields well. It does not describe the shape of list items versus the profile payload, leaving some uncertainty about what a list response contains, but the essential semantics are present.

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 earns above that by spelling out what `slug` returns (ficha apurada, ficha prevista, comparativo, linha do tempo) and by reinforcing that `marca` and `status` apply only to list mode. Pagination parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 resource and its defining scope: vehicles that do not yet have a catalog page. It also distinguishes the two operating modes (single profile with `slug`, filtered paginated list without), which separates it from catalog-oriented siblings like buscar_modelos and ficha_tecnica.

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?

Explicitly routes between modes: pass `slug` for the full profile, omit it for the filtered list. It names the two filter dimensions (`marca`, `status`) and their meaning. It stops short of naming a sibling tool to prefer for already-cataloged vehicles, so no exclusion is stated.

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