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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of real value beyond that: the response includes the canonical URL for citation, which is a behavioral/return detail. It does not discuss truncation, missing ids, or error behavior, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need.

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 tight sentences: the return content and citation URL come first, the example argument second. Nothing is padded, though the inline JSON example is somewhat redundant with the schema example.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety plus an output schema describing returns, the definition covers purpose, input shape, and the citation-URL outcome. Only failure handling for unknown ids is unaddressed.

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% and the parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by supplying a concrete example argument and classifying the two id namespaces (imovel: vs guia:) as property vs guide, which helps the agent form a valid id.

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 specific verb and resource: retrieves full content of a search result by id, covering both property listings and guide text, plus the canonical URL for citation. It is distinguishable from 'search' by the 'full content ... by id' framing, though it never names the sibling that produces those ids.

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: this is the follow-up step after a search returns an id, reinforced by the schema note 'Id returned by search'. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. ver_imovel for a single property) is given.

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