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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are "perfis estruturados" plus a rendered card screen and that price appears only when informed, but says nothing about empty results, fallback widening, or how the default radius is chosen beyond what the schema states.

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: purpose first, then a dense example that doubles as parameter illustration, then return shape. No filler, though the example line is long and could be trimmed slightly.

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 13 parameters, an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does, an invocation pattern and the return surface – enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is precedence/routing guidance between `where`, `lat/lng`, `niche` and `service`, which is partially handled by the schema.

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 62%, so the schema carries most of the load, and the description contributes a concrete example binding need, where, min_rating and max_price_brl to realistic values. It adds no semantics for the remaining parameters (sort, limit, min_reviews, lat/lng pairing) beyond what the schema already documents, so baseline 3 fits.

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+resource ("Encontra profissionais reais") plus the scoping conditions ("perto de um lugar", "para uma necessidade"), which immediately separates it from get_provider and compare_providers. It does not explicitly name any sibling it replaces or is replaced by, so it stops short of a 5.

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 context is conveyed only through a worked example (need/where/min_rating/max_price_brl), which implies when the tool fits but never states when not to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g. list_categories for niche slugs, search_services for service_keys). The routing hints that do exist live in the schema, not the description.

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