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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate mutation semantics. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the rig always includes natural bait as a fixed item for pesqueiro trips, and it respects the budget in budgetBRL. It does not fully describe the output format or whether it performs web searches, but the openWorldHint=true and the 'Respeita o orçamento' line give useful practical constraints. A 4 is appropriate because it adds valuable behavioral details 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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage contexts and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the output scope, the second covers when to use it, the natural-bait special case, the budget constraint, and the sibling alternative. Slightly dense, but no wasted words; a 4 is fitting.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with a single free-text parameter, an optional budget parameter, and no output schema. The description tells the agent what kind of prompt to expect, how the budget constraints behavior, and which sibling handles single-item questions. It doesn't specify the exact return format or what happens if the budget is impossible, but for a generative assembly tool with two parameters and no output schema, the context is largely complete. A 4 is justified.

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%, so both parameters (prompt, budgetBRL) are documented in the schema. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the prompt should contain (species, water, budget, preferences) with a concrete example, and by tying budgetBRL to the tool's budget-respecting behavior. This is a solid contribution, though the schema already carried the essential meaning, so it's not a 5.

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 is specific: it states the tool assembles a complete, coherent fishing rig (rod, reel, line, leader, lures, hooks) for a fishing trip, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly covering kit requests and 'what do I need to fish X'. It uses a clear verb (Monta) and a precise resource (tralha completa), so an agent can tell it apart from single-item tools like search_equipment.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: when the user asks for a full assembly, a kit, or 'what do I need to fish X', including pesqueiro with natural bait. It also provides an exclusion: 'Para dúvidas sobre um produto só, use search_equipment.' This directly routes the agent to the correct sibling and prevents mis-selection.

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