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

Annotations already mark readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds concrete behavior: up to 100 queries per call, per-city/neighborhood querying, and the returned contact fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each adds distinct value: output fields, use case, and batch limit. Information is front-loaded with the most important details and there is no filler.

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?

The description states the return fields and the core usage pattern, which is important given there is no output schema. However, with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, an agent has to infer several optional parameters and the exact response format. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It clarifies that a query is by city or neighborhood and that up to 100 queries are accepted, addressing `consultas`, but it leaves pais, local, idioma, limite, pagina, and periodo entirely unexplained. This partial compensation is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 it searches Google establishments and returns address, phone, website, rating, and review count. Positions itself as 'a ferramenta de prospecção local', which distinguishes it from sibling Google-search tools. This is a specific verb+resource description, not a tautology.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as local prospecting and says one query per city or neighborhood returns a contact-ready list. It gives clear context for when to use it but does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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