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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only 'publicados' (published) developments are listed, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or what happens when no results are found. With annotations covering the read-only/idempotent nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized and doesn't waste words. It could add a bit more guidance, but for what it is, it's efficient.

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 6 parameters, 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and no parameter enums, the description is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly in all cases. The agent knows it lists published developments for a builder, but doesn't know the meaning of city, state, status, or pagination parameters, nor what the response looks like. The description needs to compensate for the sparse schema, and it doesn't.

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 description coverage is only 17%, meaning most parameters (city, page, limit, state, status) have no description in the schema. The description only mentions the builder link and 'publicados', which partially explains the 'status' parameter but doesn't clarify the meaning of city, state, page, limit, or status values. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents to guess at parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('empreendimentos publicados vinculados a uma construtora do diretório público da ObraAberta'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and the scope (published developments linked to a builder). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_projects or list_builders, but the resource and scope are clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings.

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 implies the tool is for listing published developments by a specific builder, which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_projects or list_builders, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required id. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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