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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it specifies that the result is a median, and that providing a bairro also returns the typical property for the bairro and a comparison with the city median. This gives the agent a clear idea of what extra data to expect.

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?

The description is two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The core metric and filters come first, and the optional bairro behavior is added as a clarifying second sentence. Every phrase 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?

For a read-only query tool with no output schema, the description communicates the input dimensions, the core result (median price per m²), and the conditional extra output (typical property and comparison). It does not specify units or an exact return shape, but the behavior is clear enough for an agent to call it correctly with the provided 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with enums and descriptions, including defaults for tipo and operacao and the meaning of bairro. The description reinforces those filters but adds little semantic value beyond restating that the metric varies by property type and operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the median square-meter price for a city or neighborhood, with filters for property type and sale/rental operation. It is more specific than the title and gives the metric being computed, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ranking_bairros or comparar.

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 description explains the optional neighborhood behavior but gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as ranking_bairros, comparar, or rendimento_aluguel. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'for rankings, use...' statement, leaving the agent to infer the tool's place in the workflow.

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