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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation costs double a web search and accepts up to 100 queries per call. It also discloses what data the search returns, which helps set expectations.

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 short, purposeful sentences are front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by use cases and operational constraints. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or repetition.

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 covers the tool's core purpose, return fields, cost, and batch capacity, which is a solid start. However, with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, it leaves important operational details unexplained, such as how pagination (pagina, limite) behaves, what values periodo accepts, and how country/language/location affect results.

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 carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It only hints at 'consultas' through the batch limit, but does not explain the semantics or formats of pais, local, idioma, limite, pagina, or periodo. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Busca produtos no Google Shopping' and enumerates result attributes (preço, loja, nota, imagem). It also identifies use cases (price research, competition monitoring), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like busca_google_web or busca_google_imagens.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: price research and competition monitoring. It also provides a cost signal ('Custa o dobro de uma busca web por consulta') that helps an agent decide between this and a cheaper web search, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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