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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety and mutation profile. The description adds semantic context (counts 'real professionals', recognizes places at neighborhood/city/state level) but doesn't disclose return format, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 core purpose followed by a usage directive. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meaning adequately. It implies a count is returned but doesn't specify the response structure, and doesn't explicitly state that 'need' is optional (though implied by 'no geral ou para uma necessidade').

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'where' is a place (bairro, cidade, UF) and that 'need' is an optional filter ('no geral ou para uma necessidade'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare string types. It does not detail exact format or minLength, but provides useful guidance.

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 (reconhece/atendem) and resource (lugar, profissionais) with scope (bairro, cidade, UF em todo o Brasil). An agent can tell it apart from siblings like find_providers or estimate_price, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives to reinforce differentiation.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Use antes de prometer algo ao usuário' (use before promising something to the user). However, it does not specify when-not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks.

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