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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the tool does not fabricate data and returns 'não informado' when Loqal lacks a value, which tells the agent how to interpret missing fields.

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 with no filler: the core comparison action and scope come first, followed by the data-honesty caveat. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned comparison fields (nota, avaliações, distância, preço, 24h, verificação) and the null-handling rule, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. The only gap is the unexplained 'where' parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify the slugs constraint (2 to 6) and ties 'need' to the comparison purpose, but the 'where' parameter is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 and resource ('Compara lado a lado 2 a 6 profissionais') plus the comparison dimensions (nota, avaliações, distância, preço, 24h, verificação). This clearly separates it from find_providers and get_provider, which return a single or listed provider rather than a side-by-side comparison.

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?

The phrase 'para uma necessidade' implies the comparison is scoped to a need, and the 2-6 slug bound tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, it never states when to prefer get_provider or find_providers instead, nor any exclusion conditions, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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