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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does describe the payload in unusual detail (comparables with price, area, R$/m², the median, ITBI sales with date, paid value, area). It omits the behavioral edges that matter for a data-evidence tool: it is implicitly a read-only lookup but never says so, and it does not say what is returned when no comparable or ITBI sale exists.

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 opening clause is well front-loaded — the resource and its evidence are named before the usage cues. However, the entire content is then restated in an English gloss that adds no new information, roughly doubling length for a bilingual reader who needs only one half.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the median calculation, which is the main thing an agent would otherwise have to guess. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the two parameters and a read-only operation, the definition is close to self-sufficient.

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 both the required id (pointing at buscar_imoveis output) and the limite cap of 30 are already documented, making the baseline 3 correct. The description reinforces the comparison criteria ('tamanho próximo', same building/street/neighborhood) but adds nothing about what limite controls or how comparables are ranked when truncated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it shows the evidence behind a listing's price label — the comparables used (same building/street/neighborhood, similar size) plus the ITBI registered sales in the same building, including the median. That is concrete enough to separate it from ficha_imovel or resumo_bairro, though it never names comparaveis_endereco, the sibling whose scope (address vs. property id) is closest and most confusable.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions by quoting the user questions it answers ('esse preço é bom?', 'com o que vocês compararam?', 'por quanto venderam apartamentos nesse prédio?'), which is genuinely useful for routing. It stops short of when-not guidance or naming an alternative when the caller has an address instead of a property id.

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