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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the with_active_only=true default, that query overrides that filter, and that a market without current offers is returned with a warning surfaced in meta.notices.

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 purpose and the query/default rule, then coverage limits, then scope exclusions. The two example utterances earn their space as retrieval cues, though the block is dense and a slightly tighter phrasing of the default rule would lose nothing.

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?

Output schema covers return shape and annotations cover safety, so the description only needed to supply the default-filter rule, the override behavior, the geographic limit and the read-only scope — all present. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, but the schema's own query description ('Texto da busca (produto)') is misleading for this tool; the description corrects it to market-name confirmation and explains the query/with_active_only interaction rule that the schema only states tersely. Region is left to the schema's 'só joinville por enquanto'.

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 (list covered markets) plus what the result contains (addresses and offer counts), and frames the query parameter as a name-confirmation path rather than a product search, which separates it from search/search_offers. An agent knows exactly what this returns 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 explicit when-to-use triggers (two example user utterances), documents the default behavior without query vs. with query, and states hard exclusions: only Joinville/SC, not other cities, and it does not sell, reserve or deliver. That is the full when/when-not/alternative picture.

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