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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description only implies a semantic mapping operation and says nothing about matching quality, fallback behavior when no service matches, or result ranking.

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: the function first, the usage trigger second, with zero filler. Front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety semantics. What remains missing is minor: no hint about match ambiguity or what to do when nothing maps, which matters for a fuzzy natural-language matcher.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'need'. The natural-language examples in the description reinforce the free-text expectation but add little beyond what the schema field description already states.

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?

Concrete verb+resource: maps a natural-language need onto Loqal services, with concrete input examples. It is clearly distinct from sibling lookups like list_categories or find_providers, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"Use quando não estiver claro qual profissional resolve" gives explicit when-to-use and implies when-not (once the category/provider is known, the lookup tools apply). It stops short of naming the alternative tools, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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