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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: price null means "sob consulta", monthlyTotal is rent + condo + IPTU, and street/number are deliberately withheld until the agency confirms the visit. That last point is a privacy constraint no annotation or schema conveys.

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 dense paragraph, well front-loaded (purpose → filters → return shape → visit flow), with no filler sentences. It is on the long side and the return-shape and visit-flow material could be split for scanability, but every clause carries information.

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 takes on the burden of describing the result and does so: price, condoFee, iptu, monthlyTotal, características, images, storeId, creci, plus the null-price and hidden-address caveats. For a 13-parameter, zero-required search tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 100% and every one of the 13 filters is documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces the key coupling that maxPrice/minPrice mean sale price or monthly rent depending on deal, but adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already state. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb + resource ("Busca imóveis") and immediately scopes it to SALE/RENT listings from CRECI-registered agencies, then enumerates the filterable facets (cidade, bairro, preço, quartos, vagas, área, pet, mobiliado). An agent can distinguish this from search_products/get_store_portfolio without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly routes the next steps: to visit, check check_availability with productId/storeId and build create_cart with fulfillment 'visit' and scheduledFor. It also states the platform itself does not sell or rent. What's missing is an explicit counterpart — e.g. when to prefer get_store_portfolio or search_products — so the reader must infer that this is the search entry point.

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