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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the metric is actual price paid rather than asking price, the source is ITBI, the window is the last 12 months, and coverage is all 96 districts. It does not describe the return shape or data limitations, but with annotations covering safety it is reasonably transparent.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the example queries are useful, but the description duplicates the same content in Portuguese and English, which nearly doubles length without adding information. It is not badly structured, but the bilingual repetition reduces conciseness.

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 read-only ranking tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the key context: geography, metric, timeframe, sort modes, and filters. It leaves out details such as the exact response fields or handling of districts with sparse data, but the agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 all four optional parameters and their enums are already documented in the schema. The description restates the available filters and sort modes but adds little semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 clearly states a specific resource and scope: a ranking of São Paulo's 96 districts by actual paid m² over 12 months, with sort modes and filters. It is easy to distinguish at a high level from property-level or address-level siblings, but it never names or explicitly contrasts those alternatives.

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 gives concrete example questions such as 'quais os bairros mais caros de São Paulo?' and 'bairro mais barato da zona leste', which clearly show when to use it. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly route users to siblings like vendas_bairro or resumo_bairro.

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