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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: the viewing is NOT confirmed automatically and the consultant must contact the user to confirm date/time. This is exactly the kind of workflow context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) cannot convey. It omits failure/error behavior or rate limits.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core action comes first, the confirmation caveat second. The bilingual duplication adds length without adding information, a minor inefficiency in an otherwise tight definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers consent (RGPD) and contact rules. Combined with annotations, the description supplies the remaining behavioral nuance; only the absence of failure/permission handling keeps it short of 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters including the consent and contact requirements. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies when the schema does 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Registers a viewing request for a property.' This is clearly distinguishable in intent from siblings like pedir_avaliacao or ver_imovel, though the description never explicitly names or contrasts with any sibling 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('registers a viewing request'), and it clarifies the follow-up workflow (consultant confirms). However, it gives no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, e.g. when to choose this over falar_com_consultor, which is a close sibling.

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