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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: it discloses that party names are omitted and that a high-demand response should be retried once after a short wait. It does not describe pagination or rate limits beyond that single retry hint.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and scope limitation front-loaded and the routing/retry guidance following. Every clause earns its place.

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, return-value detail is not required, and the description still flags the key output caveat (no party names) plus the retry protocol for a one-parameter read tool. Slightly incomplete only in that it does not mention any output shape constraints beyond that caveat.

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 the CNJ format with or without punctuation. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 ('Consulta o andamento processual público de um número CNJ') and immediately bounds the scope by noting it does not return party names. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling buscar_jurisprudencia by routing jurisprudence queries there.

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 names the alternative for jurisprudence ('para jurisprudência, use buscar_jurisprudencia') and gives retry guidance for the high-demand case. It does not, however, address when to reach for decodificar_numero_cnj or validar_cpf_cnpj, so routing is only partially covered.

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