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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output context beyond that: the founder credential appears in invariant order, prices are in BRL with an as-of date, and the result is the practice profile rather than the company profile. It also clarifies a scope boundary without contradicting the annotations.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a dense but relevant enumeration of returned data. Every listed item adds value, though the long parenthetical list makes it somewhat harder to scan than a structured breakdown.

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 zero-argument, read-only information tool with an output schema, the description covers the trigger, the returned content, pricing details, and the boundary with institutional data. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers 100% of them. The description reinforces this with 'No arguments,' so an agent knows nothing needs to be supplied. With no parameters to document, the zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with the exact use cases—who Alexandre Caramaschi is, what he offers and at what price, and how to reach his practice—and then enumerates the specific content returned. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly stating that Brasil GEO's institutional data is not served here. This is a clear, specific verb+resource description, not a tautology.

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 states when to use the tool: when an agent needs the person's identity, offerings, prices, or contact details. It also gives an explicit exclusion and alternative routing: 'Brasil GEO's own institutional data is served by brasilgeo.ai, not here.' This lets an agent select the tool without inspecting sibling schemas.

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