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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds substantial extra context: an eight-result cap, the 3-to-8-digit CEP prefix rule with optional hyphen after the fifth digit, and the provenance/limitation that data is CNEFE 2022 and does not certify the current postal CEP. Only pagination/ordering behavior is left unexplained.

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-loads what the tool returns and the result cap before drilling into format rules, so the agent gets the essentials first. Slightly dense and run-on in the middle sentences, but every sentence adds a distinct fact rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden: it discloses the shape (up to eight places with neighborhood and city) and the caveat that one address represents each CEP. For a three-parameter read-only suggestion tool this is nearly complete, with only result ordering/pagination unaddressed.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by spelling out the accepted CEP input format (3-8 digits, optional hyphen after the fifth) and clarifying that uf/cidade only constrain the street-search branch, not the CEP branch.

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 (suggest) and resource (partial CEP or street name) with concrete scope: up to eight places, each with neighborhood and city. It implies a distinct role from a full lookup tool ('the full lookup returns the others') but never names the sibling (buscar, consulta_cep) it is meant to complement.

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?

Conveys the usage context well: partial input for typeahead-style suggestions, with format rules for CEP prefixes and optional UF/city for street search. However, it never states when an agent should pick this over buscar/consulta_cep/consulta_endereco, and the reference to 'the full lookup' is left unnamed.

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