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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), but the description adds real behavioral value: prices are only real, a minimum of 5 nearby professionals is required, the Loqal index fallback is state or national with a reference page, and it refuses to fabricate when data is insufficient. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core outcome (price range for a service in a region) and then the sourcing/fallback detail. Dense but every clause carries information; no padding, though the parenthetical is slightly run-on.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains what is returned (a price range plus its source/reference) and the failure mode (states there is not enough data rather than inventing values). Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the parameter meanings remain underspecified.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden. 'de um serviço numa região' weakly maps to need and where, but neither parameter is named or explained, and the mention of source=indice_loqal introduces a value not present in the schema, which could mislead.

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 concrete verb+resource: returns a price range for a service in a region, and specifies the two data sources used. It is clear about scope, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like estimate_job or compare_providers, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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?

Usage is implied ('faixa de preço de um serviço numa região') and the description explains the internal condition for choosing a source (5+ nearby professionals vs. the Loqal index), but it never states when to pick this tool over estimate_job or compare_providers. No explicit when-not guidance.

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