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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive outward-facing write. The description confirms a 'contact request' is submitted but adds nothing about what happens downstream (notification, response time, whether consent is validated server-side), so it earns only modest credit 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the bilingual pair is a reasonable choice for a Portuguese-market tool. The Portuguese sentence is largely a restatement of the English one, which costs a little efficiency.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain returns or parameters. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only downstream behavior of the submitted request.

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 100%, so all eight parameters including the RGPD consent flag and the interesse enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Leaves a contact request for a Metastate consultant', with the supported intents (buy, sell, rent, other) enumerated. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like pesquisar_imoveis or ver_imovel, though it never names how it differs from nearby write siblings such as marcar_visita or pedir_avaliacao.

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?

Usage is implied — the agent can infer this is for when a user wants to be contacted by a consultant — but there are no explicit when/when-not conditions and no routing to alternatives like marcar_visita. The language list implies applicability to multilingual users but isn't framed as guidance.

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