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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the result cap ('até 5 artigos') and the returned fields (título, endereço, resumo). No mention of ranking/relevance behavior, but the key behavioral trait (a bounded top-5 list) is disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then output shape, then usage examples. The parenthetical topic list is slightly long but serves the disambiguation purpose, so it earns its space.

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 compensates by specifying result count and fields. For a single-parameter read-only search, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 goes beyond it by giving concrete example values ('ferritina baixa', 'TSH alto') that clarify the expected free-text granularity and language. It does not add syntax constraints, but none are needed for a single string.

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 ('Procura') and resource (blog articles from Dr. Mais Vida), enumerating the covered exam topics. It's clearly distinct from check_lab_result and ask_health_guidelines in substance, but it never names the siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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 instructs 'Use com o nome do exame ou a dúvida' and supplies two concrete example queries, giving clear context for invocation. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for guidelines vs. lab-result interpretation.

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