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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: accent- and case-insensitive matching, a cap of 20 results, and the fields returned including IBGE code formats and map panel address.

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?

It is a compact description that front-loads the core action and follows with matching behavior and return shape. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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 search tool with no output schema, it discloses the matching rules, result cap, and the main returned fields. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify whether results are ordered or how partial-name matches rank.

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 100%, and the single query parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the accent/case-insensitivity behavior, which is helpful but does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema's minimum-length example.

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 ('Busca municípios e estados pelo nome') and the scope of the search. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_territories or get_territory_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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 name-based lookups, which is clear enough context. It does not say when to use this instead of list_territories, get_territory_profile, or the generic search sibling, and gives no exclusions.

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