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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a single table spanning 27 federative units, which is useful context, but says nothing about units, formatting, or whether filtering is possible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the country marker first and the topic list trailing. It is tight, though re-enumerating the six topics already present in the schema is mildly redundant.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows what topics exist and that results are one table across 27 units. It omits what columns/units the table returns and whether any filtering or pagination applies, leaving some gaps.

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 enum parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description merely re-lists the same six enum values, adding no syntax, default, or interpretation beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description states the resource (Brazilian property costs/figures) and scope (one table across the 27 federative units), and the leading "BRAZIL." tag distinguishes it from the many compare_states_* siblings. It stops short of an explicit verb like "compare", relying on the title, but the resource and country are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as purchase_costs_br, guide_br, or the other compare_states_* tools. The reader can infer it is a cross-state comparison, but no condition, exclusion, or routing to a sibling is provided.

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