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

The description usefully discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it triggers a follow-up from a consultant and produces only an indicative range, not a formal valuation. That goes beyond readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true by explaining the lead-capture consequence, though it does not state auth or data-handling limits beyond what the schema's GDPR field implies.

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 compact sentences that lead with the core outcome and append the consultant follow-up, so nothing is buried. The bilingual duplication adds length without new information for an English-reading agent, a minor inefficiency.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key side effect (consultant contact) and the scope of the estimate. What is left out is the decision context against sibling tools, which is modest given the schema's completeness.

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 all eight parameters, including the mandatory GDPR consent with its privacy-policy URL, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond that baseline.

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 resource and what it returns: an indicative sale value range for a Portuguese property derived from comparable listings, plus a consultant follow-up. The purpose is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like consultar_precos_mercado or falar_com_consultor, which cover adjacent ground.

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 description (a homeowner wanting a quick price estimate and onward contact), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to the semantically close siblings consultar_precos_mercado and falar_com_consultor. An agent must infer the choice.

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