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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only that the lookup accepts a reference or slug, without disclosing auth needs, pagination, or error behavior for a missing reference.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the field list is compact. The bilingual duplication roughly doubles length without adding information, keeping it just below top marks.

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 and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it is adequate for a simple one-parameter read tool. It could be slightly stronger by noting behavior when the reference is invalid.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the origin of the reference. The description adds only the META-003 example, which is marginal beyond what the schema already conveys, so 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 (view full details) and resource (one property) and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly distinguishes it from the search sibling pesquisar_imoveis. It does not name the alternative explicitly, but the single-property lookup framing is unmistakable.

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?

The description implies usage ('by reference or slug') and the schema notes the reference comes from pesquisar_imoveis, so an agent can infer this is the detail-view follow-up to a search. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are given.

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