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

Annotations already declare it safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds non-obvious behavior: no quota consumption, no contact data returned, and the meaning of the `incompleto` condition. That is genuine added context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three compact sentences: the core behavior and ordering come first, followed by the quota/contact caveats and the `incompleto` note. Nothing is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and covers the main points (list of up to 8 ordered matches, no contacts, `incompleto` marker). Only a fuller sketch of the returned fields is missing, which is minor for a suggestion endpoint.

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% and the single `q` parameter is fully documented in the schema with length bounds and accepted formats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (suggests) and resource (Brazilian companies) with scope (up to 8) and ordering (best match first). The note that it 'does not show contacts' implicitly separates it from the fuller consulta_cadastro, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 remark that it 'does not count against the daily free limit' hints at when it is preferable, and the no-contacts note implies a lightweight lookup, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of buscar, sugerir, or consulta_cadastro.

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