Buscar imóvel por endereço

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds a real operational constraint in the auth requirement and identifies the data source as the municipal cadastro. It omits what a no-match result looks like, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence with the auth tag front-loaded in brackets and the exclusion clause trailing. Nothing is redundant and the most operationally important fact (requires a key) comes first.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the auth requirement, source registry, accepted input types and the CPF exclusion cover what an agent needs to call it correctly. Result-shape and pagination behavior are the only gaps, and the limite parameter plus readOnly annotations partially compensate.

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 three parameters including the cidade slug hint and limite are already documented. The description's phrase "por endereço ou inscrição" restates the termo parameter rather than adding syntax or format guidance, 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 concrete verb ("Acha") and resource ("o lote/imóvel no cadastro municipal") plus the accepted key types (endereço ou inscrição), which lets an agent distinguish it from consultar_cnpj or ficha_imovel. It stops short of 5 because it never names the sibling it defers to for the excluded case.

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?

Gives an operational precondition (requires BITBUSCA_API_KEY, flagged as advanced) and one negative scope ("não busca por CPF"), which is useful routing information. It does not state when to prefer it over ficha_imovel or what to do when the key is missing, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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