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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it declares the operation is a read-only ranking over 'imóveis à venda', describes the return payload as a 0-100 score plus reasons and alerts, and shows example alerts so the agent knows what comes back. It omits any statement about how many candidates are evaluated or whether results are capped, which is where the remaining opacity lies.

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?

Front-loaded with the ranking criteria and the output contract before the trigger example, and every clause earns its place. The full English restatement roughly doubles the length for little new information, which is the only structural cost.

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 15-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model and return shape well, but leaves several levers unexplained — notably limite (how many recommendations, default 8, cap 20) and the filtro params (tipo, area_min, objetivo, quartos_min, vagas_min). An agent can call it, but can't confidently predict result count or how those filters interact with ranking.

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 only 53%, but the description compensates meaningfully: it maps commute modes (transporte, carro, bike, a pé) to modo, 'distância de pessoas importantes (pais, escola)' to pessoas, 'metrô a pé' to metro, 'o que ela não abre mão' to essenciais, and 'regiões que prefere' to bairros. It also explains the two input styles — everything inside q as free text, or pre-resolved points with address or lat/lon — which is genuine added meaning. Undocumented params like limite, objetivo and area_min are left to their names.

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 orders/ranks for-sale homes for a person — and enumerates the ranking criteria (commute time, distance to family/school, subway, price vs comparables, must-haves, preferred areas). It also pins the output form ('nota de 0 a 100, motivos e alertas'), which no sibling (buscar_imoveis, ficha_imovel, comparaveis_*) provides.

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 an explicit trigger — 'Use quando a pessoa cita trabalho, escola, família ou rotina' — with a concrete example request, which clearly separates it from a plain listing search. It does not name a sibling or state when NOT to use it (e.g. when the user just wants raw listings, use buscar_imoveis), so it falls short of a 5.

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