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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structural behavior: each result carries a status of verified, unverified, under_review (text diverges from the official source and is not shown) or revoked, which tells the agent how much to trust and display the returned text. It does not discuss caching, freshness timing, or rate limits.

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 identification of the resource, followed by the cross-court caveat and then the status semantics; every sentence carries information. No filler, though the status enumeration could be slightly tighter.

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 four-parameter lookup with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers what is needed: what the record contains and how to interpret the status flag. Nothing essential is missing, though a one-line pointer to search_legislation for discovery-by-text would have closed the remaining gap.

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 the schema baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond it by explaining that the same tema number exists across different courts, making the court parameter a disambiguator rather than a filter. The kind/court pairing (tema only for STJ repetitivo or STF repercussão geral) is reinforced by the resource sentence, though the binding flag is left entirely to the 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 resource precisely: an enunciado de súmula from STF, STJ or TST, or a tema (repetitivo of STJ / repercussão geral of STF), along with the questão, tese and source link. A reader immediately knows what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_provision or search_legislation, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource description; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus search_legislation or get_provision. The one guidance-like sentence, 'O mesmo número de tema existe em tribunais diferentes', usefully warns that the number alone is not unique and that court selects the correct record.

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