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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by specifying that offers are current ('vigentes') and scoped to a local source and region. However, it does not disclose output format, ordering, or limitations, though this is a relatively minor gap for a simple search tool.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and gives usage guidance without filler. Every part earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the input and trigger conditions well. However, there is no output schema and four sibling tools, so it would benefit from explaining what the result looks like and how it differs from top_offers, best_price, and list_markets. The broad mention of 'supermercados locais' may also blur the line with list_markets.

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 schema fully describes the single 'query' parameter, including examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's action ('Busca ofertas vigentes') and its scope: current offers from Menor Preço Hoje in Lages, Santa Catarina. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: whenever the user asks about products, prices, promotions, or local supermarkets. It does not provide when-not-to-use conditions or contrast with alternatives like list_markets or best_price.

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