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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it says the result set is ids/titles/canonical URLs and that this is a two-step search-then-fetch flow, which tells the agent not to expect full content here.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, return shape second, follow-up action third. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it indexes and how to continue) is front-loaded.

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?

A 1-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema needs little more than this; the description covers scope, return entry points, and the fetch handoff. The only gap is the unexplained relationship to the overlapping property-specific search siblings.

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% for the single query parameter, and the schema already gives natural-language examples ('3 bedroom for sale in Lisbon with garage', 'IMT costs'). The description adds no formatting, length, or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: free-text search over the live property portfolio plus guides (INE prices, purchase costs, foreign-buyer guide). The scope note that it covers both properties and editorial guides implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower siblings like pesquisar_imoveis and consultar_precos_mercado, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides workflow guidance (use fetch with an id to get full content) and frames itself as the standard search/fetch entry point for deep research. However, it never states when to pick this over pesquisar_imoveis or consultar_guia_estrangeiro, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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