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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive behavior. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context by scoping the data source to the iscabox catalog and stating 'Retorna preços ao vivo,' which is a meaningful behavioral promise for a price-sensitive search tool. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose/scope, when-to-use, and return behavior. The category parenthetical is helpful rather than redundant because it enumerates the catalog's scope.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers selection triggers, catalog scope, and live-price return behavior. It is slightly incomplete about the result shape, but the schema documents all parameters and the use cases are fully covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the price-range concept and gives example product categories, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Busca equipamentos de pesca no catálogo da iscabox' and lists concrete product types. It is clearly distinct from sibling location/species/technique searches, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping product tools like get_lures_for_species or route to get_equipment_details.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use sempre que o usuário pedir recomendação de produto, comparação ou faixa de preço.' This tells an agent when to select the tool, but it gives no exclusions or alternative tool routing for adjacent cases such as species-specific lure queries.

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