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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, is pay-per-query with prepaid credits, and is not confidential data, plus LGPD responsibilities for the client.

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?

The description is four concise sentences, each adding distinct information (purpose, hosting/payment, data nature, legal responsibility). No redundancy and it front-loads the main purpose.

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?

While the description covers the operational and legal context, it omits essential parameter semantics and expected return values. For a query tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this is a significant gap that hinders correct invocation.

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?

The input schema lists 'camada', 'car', and 'hash_endereco' with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they should be used. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid query.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a query (consulta) on the 'Mapa do Registro de Imóveis' using an official source. It stands out from sibling platform tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) as the only data query tool.

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?

It provides context about when to use: when needing official Brazilian property registry map data. It explains the payment model and data availability, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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