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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it returns structured profiles (rating, reviews, distance, price) plus a UI 'tela com cards', and it discloses that max_price_brl keeps providers who quoted by orçamento rather than price. Missing only pagination/limit behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences: purpose, worked example, return shape. Every part earns its place, though the example is somewhat long and consumes space that could have covered uncovered parameters.

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 13-parameter search with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers intent, a realistic example, key parameter precedence rules, and return contents. Gaps are minor (sorting/limit semantics), and the output schema removes the need to explain return values in depth.

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%, and the description supplies a full example that demonstrates how need/where/min_rating/max_price_brl combine, plus a clarifying hint for max_price_brl. It does not compensate for the undocumented params (sort, limit, min_reviews), so it sits at the baseline for partial coverage.

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 ('Encontra profissionais reais perto de um lugar para uma necessidade') and grounds it with a concrete example call. It implicitly separates itself from get_provider/compare_providers by being a discovery search, but never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 worked example shows how to invoke it, and it notes that niche 'vence a interpretação do texto' and that service prioritizes exact matches — useful behavioral guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement relative to siblings like search_services or compare_providers, so usage is only implied.

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