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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: the stats are computed over *active* (semelhantes) listings, not sold data. It says nothing about how similarity is determined or how many listings are sampled.

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?

Very compact: the output shape is front-loaded, followed by the usage hint and the one parameter caveat. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical parameter note slightly interrupts the flow.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned percentiles, and the year_tolerance constraint is given. It omits any explanation of the 'similar active listings' similarity criteria and ignores car_id, but for a simple read-only stat tool it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents year_tolerance (default 1, max 5), which the schema only partially conveys (default present, max absent). car_id is left unexplained, though its meaning is largely self-evident from the tool name.

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+resource: it returns the price distribution (min, p25, median, p75, max) of similar active listings. That is a distinct output from siblings like get_fipe_valuation or get_market_position. It does not name or contrast those siblings explicitly, 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?

'Use para dar contexto de preço' gives an implied usage context, but there is no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions. With many sibling pricing tools available, an agent gets only a vague steer toward price context.

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