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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: the data sources (asking prices vs. ITBI registry), the 12-month window, and the fact that comparisons require one call per neighborhood. No rate limits or failure behavior are mentioned.

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 metric list is front-loaded and useful, but the entire description is duplicated in Portuguese and English, roughly doubling length without adding information for an agent. The core content is tight; the bilingual redundancy is the main 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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating every reported metric and its time window. What remains unstated is response shape (structured vs. narrative) and behavior for unknown neighborhoods, which keeps it from a 5.

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 both parameters are documented with bilingual descriptions and an enum for tipo. The description adds only marginal meaning, mainly the example neighborhood names echoed from the schema and the implied default of apartment in its examples. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter 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?

The description names the resource (a São Paulo neighborhood) and enumerates exactly what is returned: listing counts, median asking price, R$/m² overall and by bedrooms, below-market share, subway proximity, and ITBI paid prices for the last 12 months. This is far more specific than the title and lets an agent distinguish it from listing-oriented siblings like buscar_imoveis or ficha_imovel.

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 three concrete trigger queries ("quanto custa um apartamento em Moema?", "qual o preço do m² em Pinheiros?", "Tatuapé ou Mooca, qual é mais barato?") plus the operational instruction to call once per neighborhood for comparisons. It does not state exclusions or what to use instead when the agent needs individual listings, 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.