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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the analytical logic (market median and km/year) beyond annotations, though it omits output format and any latency/auth caveats.

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?

One compact sentence with the verb and evaluation criteria front-loaded, with no filler. It is arguably too terse given the missing guidance, but conciseness itself is good.

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, single-parameter analytical tool with rich annotations, the description gives the core evaluation logic. It still leaves gaps around when to choose it over siblings and what car_id refers to, so it is only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the single car_id parameter has no schema description. The phrase 'deste carro' loosely ties to car_id but adds no format, source, or constraint details.

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 analytical action (evaluates whether mileage is high or low for model/year) and the method (market median + km/year). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_market_position or get_fipe_valuation, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description implies a mileage-relative assessment but leaves the agent to infer the context.

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