imoveis_campos

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., is it read-only? does it require authentication?). The only hint is that it 'discovers' fields, implying a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient but could benefit from a bit more context without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description bears full burden. It fails to explain the return format, how to use the discovered fields, or whether the result is a list of names, objects, etc. The description is too minimal to be considered complete.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100% and no further parameter explanation is needed.

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?

Description states it discovers available fields in the API, which conveys the basic purpose. However, it is vague about which API or context (e.g., for properties), and it doesn't differentiate from similar metadata tools like 'clientes_campos' or 'pipeline_campos', which could have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or appropriate usage context, such as before performing property searches or edits. The agent receives no help in deciding when this tool is applicable.

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