Cidades com cadastro de imóveis

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: the call requires BITBUSCA_API_KEY and coverage is partial rather than nationwide, which prevents the agent from treating an empty result as proof no listings exist. It does not describe the shape of each returned city entry beyond the slug field.

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 tight sentences: prerequisite first, then purpose and coverage caveat, then the actionable routing instruction. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant facts lead.

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 zero-parameter reference lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite, the coverage limitation and the key return field. Minor gaps remain (whether entries also carry name/state/UF, or rough result size), but an agent can call this correctly and use the result without further information.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to disambiguate on input. The description does useful extra work by naming the output field ('slug') that downstream tools expect, compensating for the absent output schema.

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 ('Lista as cidades com cadastro imobiliário disponível') and immediately scopes it with 'cobertura parcial do país', so an agent knows this is a discovery/lookup of covered cities, not a search of listings. It distinguishes itself from buscar_imovel and ficha_imovel by positioning itself as the source of the city slug those tools consume.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: take the 'slug' field and pass it as the city argument in buscar_imovel and ficha_imovel, which is exactly the when/how-to-use guidance needed for a reference-data tool. It also flags the advanced API-key prerequisite. It stops short of saying 'call this first when the city is unknown', but the routing is clear enough to infer.

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