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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with them, describing a read operation. The description adds that the data is public and includes indicators, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any access constraints; this is acceptable given the annotations but not especially rich.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the operation and scope. There is no redundant or filler content; every part of the sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the lookup key, and the content returned (public indicators). It could be improved with a note on output structure or when to prefer siblings, but these are not critical gaps for this simple tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with the description 'Slug ou UUID da construtora.' The tool description reinforces this by saying 'por slug ou UUID' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('consulta a ficha pública de uma construtora') and the resource (builder public record and public indicators), with the identifier format (slug or UUID). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_builders or get_builder_projects.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_builders or get_builder_projects. The phrase 'pública' implies a use case for public data, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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