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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: the payload spans listing history, market comparison and ITBI transaction data, which tells the agent this is a heavy, single-property read rather than a light lookup. No rate limits or failure modes are mentioned, but for a read-only detail tool that is a minor gap.

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 content is front-loaded on what the record contains, then the usage clause, then a separator and full English restatement. The bilingual duplication doubles length, but it serves a stated Portuguese/English audience, and no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly — listings, price history, photos, amenities, fees, transit, price explanation, ITBI comparables. Combined with a single fully-documented required parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

There is one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already saying the id comes from buscar_imoveis and giving an example format. The description repeats the same provenance hint without adding format, validation or edge-case guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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+resource ('Ficha completa de um imóvel') and enumerates exactly what the record contains: active listings, price history, photos, amenities, condo fee/IPTU, subway, price label, ITBI sales. It also names the sibling that produces the input (buscar_imoveis), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the 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?

Gives clear trigger conditions: 'Use quando a pessoa quer detalhes, quer comparar imobiliárias anunciando o mesmo imóvel ou perguntar se o preço é bom.' That covers the main intents well. It stops short of routing away from siblings like comparaveis_imovel or comparaveis_endereco, which overlap with the price-comparison intent, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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