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.