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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: passing lat/lng for a city returns nearby places even when the city itself has no page. It also instructs using kind to separate pesque-pague from natural water, going beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the filter capabilities, the primary use trigger, and the city/kind behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 an 8-optional-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation scenarios: general 'where to fish' queries, city-based proximity searches, and kind separation. It does not describe the response shape or ordering, but the rich schema descriptions and annotations carry enough of that burden.

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%, and the description itself mostly restates what the schema already explains, such as filtering by state, species, or water type. The only added semantic hint is 'Use kind para separar pesque-pague de água livre', but the kind parameter description already conveys that distinction. Baseline 3 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 'Busca locais de pesca no acervo da iscabox', naming the specific verb, resource, and collection, then enumerates the types of results (rios, represas, praias, pesqueiros). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_species or search_equipment, which target different resource types.

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 explicitly says 'Use quando o usuário perguntar onde pescar', providing a clear trigger condition for when to invoke the tool. It also gives contextual guidance for city-based queries, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like get_location or get_river.

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