BrokerIA Imoveis

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds crucial behavioral details: the request is sent to the agency and does NOT confirm or book anything on its own. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the real-world flow and limitation, which is valuable for correct invocation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, required fields, and behavioral limitation. No redundant filler or off-topic content.

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?

Given the 6 parameters, nested contact object, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the process, required inputs, and post-submission behavior. It could have mentioned what the response returns, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. The description is sufficiently complete for an action-oriented tool.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters and the enum. The description recaps the required fields ('Requer id do imovel, nome do visitante, telefone ou email, data preferida e periodo') but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Registra uma SOLICITACAO de visita a um imovel' (registers a visit request to a property), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling search/info tools by emphasizing the request action, and the caveat 'Nao confirma visita nem reserva horario por conta propria' clarifies its scope.

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool (to register a visit request) and states the required inputs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but siblings are all read-only search tools, making the use case clear. The mention that the agency contacts to confirm further guides user expectations.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive intent, lowering the bar. Description adds that results include photo, approximate address, price, and ID, plus the list-return behavior. Does not discuss pagination or response structure, but adds meaningful context beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, filters, and return fields. No wasted words.

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?

With 14 parameters, no output schema, and a required natural-language parameter, a short list of filters is insufficient. It does not explain pagination, the role of 'descricao', or the non-residential types allowed in the schema. The description is adequate for a simple filter tool but not for this complexity.

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 79%, but description omits the required 'descricao' parameter entirely and fails to mention other params like finalidade, imobiliaria, limit/offset. Although it lists common filters, it does not clarify that the search is driven by a natural-language description, which is essential. The description also omits enum options beyond casa/apartamento/terreno.

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?

Description clearly states it searches residential real estate listings from partner agencies in Brazil. It lists filters and return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like detalhes_imovel (details) by specifying it returns a list with IDs for detail lookup.

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?

Implies usage for property search with filters, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like imoveis_proximos or comparar_imoveis. No exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context: the estimate is educational only, does not check credit history, does not determine approval, and optionally counts catalog matches. This goes beyond the annotation hints without contradiction.

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 front-load the primary function, followed by clear limitations and usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant text.

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 purpose, timing, limitations, and optional behavior, and the output shape is implied as an interval and a count. Without an output schema, a bit more detail on return format could help, but it is largely complete.

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 only 33%, and the description only indirectly references income and city, leaving parameters like idade, dependentes, tipo_imovel, FGTS values, and primeiro_imovel unexplained. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 estimates an educational property-value range based on monthly income, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it is not a quote or pre-approval and is intended for pre-search use.

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 explicitly directs use 'ANTES de buscar imoveis' and lists exclusions (not a quote, not pre-approval), but does not name alternative sibling tools. This provides clear when-to-use context with some exclusions, though not full alternative guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds behavioral details by explaining it builds a table with specific columns and does not rank or judge. This is consistent with annotations and gives context about the tool's output and limitations.

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 three concise sentences: the first defines the action and constraint, the second lists the output content, and the third explains the use case and limitation. No redundant words.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what the table contains, and its purpose, so the agent knows what to expect.

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 already provides full coverage for the single parameter, including min/max. The description adds meaning by reinforcing the 2-4 item limit and clarifying the IDs come from previous searches, which is not in the schema.

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 compares 2 to 4 properties side-by-side from IDs returned by searches, and lists the specific comparison fields (price, area, bedrooms, etc.). This makes it distinct from siblings like 'brokeria_buscar_imoveis' and 'brokeria_detalhes_imovel'.

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 specifies this tool is used after a search ('a partir dos ids retornados pelas buscas') and for visualizing objective trade-offs. It also notes it does not indicate which property is best, implying the agent should not delegate decisions to the tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that the address is approximate, which is a behavioral caveat beyond annotations, and clarifies it does not compute financing or eligibility. This adds useful context without contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action, the second lists contents and exclusions. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains 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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description lists the expected return fields and clearly states limitations. It gives enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly and set expectations.

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 covers the parameter fully with 'UUID do imovel' at 100% coverage. The description adds that the ID comes from a search result, providing provenance that helps the agent understand where to obtain the value. This goes beyond schema-only info.

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 returns public details for a specific property using the ID from a search, and lists the included fields (photos, description, features, approximate address, price, agency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_imoveis or comparar_imoveis.

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 implies when to use it by saying 'pelo id retornado por uma busca', indicating a prior search step. It also explicitly states what it does not do (calculate financing or assess credit eligibility), providing a when-not. However, it does not name alternative tools directly.

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

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the estimate is based on public average parameters (interest rate, term, down payment) and explicitly states limitations: 'NAO substitui analise de correspondente bancario autorizado pelo Banco Central do Brasil'. This adds behavioral context about what the tool does not do, which is not present in 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists limitations. It includes both Portuguese and English versions, which is redundant but not excessively verbose. The structure is clear, though the EN summary repeats the same content, adding length without new information.

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 tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It explains the output is a min-max range but does not specify the return format, units, or how parameters influence the calculation. It also does not address edge cases or required parameter semantics. The educational and non-binding context is useful, but more detail on output and parameter interactions is needed.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 36%, the description needs to compensate, but it only mentions 'taxa de juros media divulgada, prazo informado, entrada informada'. It does not explain the many other parameters like cidade, estado, dependentes, tipo_imovel, sistema_amortizacao, or modalidade_indexador. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 'Apresenta uma estimativa educacional, em intervalo (minimo e maximo), do valor de parcela mensal de referencia pra um imovel residencial no Brasil'. This specifies the verb (apresenta), the resource (monthly payment range for a residential property), and the scope (Brazil). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying it is an estimator, not a search/scheduling 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?

The description provides clear when-not-to-use guidance: 'Nao e cotacao, nao e pre-aprovacao, nao consulta bureau de credito, nao classifica em programa habitacional'. This tells the agent this tool is only for educational estimates, not for actual quotes or pre-approvals. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, so it lacks a full 'use X instead' instruction.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond by disclosing the return limit (up to 20), ordering by straight-line distance, and included fields (photo, price, basic characteristics, distance in km). This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, output details, and a use case. There is no redundancy or filler, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 read-only tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it specifies the result count, ordering, and key returned fields. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but those are not critical for this simple use case. The sibling context is not explicitly addressed, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 high (80%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description mentions 'endereco, CEP ou coordenada geografica' which maps to 'referencia' and lat/lng, and 'ate 20' which implies the limit parameter, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the weight.

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 it lists properties near an address, CEP, or geographic coordinates, with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'brokeria_buscar_imoveis' by emphasizing proximity to a specific location, making the purpose specific and 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?

It provides clear use context: 'Util pra usuarios que priorizam morar perto de um local especifico (trabalho, escola).' This implies when to use it (location-based search) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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

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

As annotations já declaram readOnlyHint=true e destructiveHint=false, e a descrição é consistente com uma operação de leitura. Ela acrescenta a fonte de dados (catalogo de parceiras) e o tipo de agregação, mas não revela possíveis limitações como autenticação, rate limits ou atualização dos dados. Como as annotations cobrem o perfil de segurança, a descrição entrega valor moderado.

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?

Uma frase densa e informativa, que começa com o verbo principal e lista métricas e uso. Não há palavras redundantes, embora seja longa e poderia ser dividida em duas frases para maior legibilidade. A estrutura é aceitável para a complexidade do conteúdo.

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?

A descrição detalha o conteúdo do retorno (total, percentis, distribuição por tipo e quartos, nº de imobiliárias) e a motivação de uso, suficiente para um tool sem output schema. Não menciona formato de resposta, mas isso não é essencial para uma ferramenta de estatísticas.

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?

O schema cobre 100% dos parâmetros, com descrições detalhadas: 'cidade' inclui exemplo e 'bairro' é opcional explicando que a omissão retorna stats da cidade inteira. A descrição da tool apenas repete a ideia de cidade ou cidade+bairro, sem acrescentar nova semântica além do schema.

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?

A descrição especifica o verbo 'Retorna', o recurso (catalogo de imobiliarias parceiras da BrokerIA) e o escopo (cidade ou cidade+bairro), listando estatísticas concretas como total de imóveis, percentis e distribuições. Diferencia-se claramente de ferramentas irmãs como brokeria_buscar_imoveis ao focar em dados agregados em vez de listagens de imóveis.

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?

Indica explicitamente quando usar: 'Util pra orientar o usuario sobre faixa de preco tipica e oferta antes de uma busca'. Não menciona quando não usar nem alternativas, mas o contexto de uso pré-busca é claro e suficiente para diferenciar de outras ferramentas.

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