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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses two critical behavioral traits an agent could not otherwise know: it does not return rulings (only access instructions), and it is gated behind paid plans. This prevents a major misuse expectation and is exactly the kind of context annotations don't carry.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the availability/limitation constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding; only minor gains possible.

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 (no need to describe returns), full parameter coverage, and safety annotations, the description's job is to cover the gaps — which it does by flagging the paid-plan requirement and the fact it doesn't return acórdãos. Adequate and near-complete for a single-parameter informational tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself ('Resumo do caso. Não é lido nem armazenado; não inclua dados pessoais'). The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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+resource (buscar jurisprudência) and immediately clarifies the surprising scope limitation: it does NOT return acórdãos, it only informs how to access the search. This is far more than restating the name, and it lets an agent distinguish it from what the name superficially implies.

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 gives a precondition ('Disponível nos planos pagos') and clarifies the tool's limited output, which implies usage context. However, it never states explicitly when to use this versus consulting the actual search, nor when not to call it, leaving the routing to inference.

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