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.