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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add content behavior — which it does by disclosing that suggested deadlines live in a separate field (prazosSugeridos) and that overdue items are included, not filtered out. It stops short of describing return shape or volume, but with annotations carrying safety that gap is minor.

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?

Content scope is front-loaded before the usage examples and the exclusions, and every clause carries information — the prazosSugeridos clarification in particular earns its place. It is slightly dense for a one-parameter tool, but there is no filler.

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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what gets aggregated, the suggested-vs-confirmed distinction, and how to route elsewhere. Only the return structure and how 'dias' interacts with overdue items are left implicit.

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% and the single 'dias' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (default 7, max 31). The description's 'próximos dias' phrasing is consistent with that window but adds no format, boundary, or edge-case detail beyond it. Baseline 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?

Names a concrete resource (the office agenda) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: open deadlines including overdue, unconfirmed suggested deadlines, hearings and meetings. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings (ultimas_movimentacoes, listar_prazos), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives both sides of the routing decision: positive triggers quoted in natural language ("o que eu tenho hoje/esta semana?", "o que vence?", "quais as próximas audiências?") and explicit exclusions with the alternative tool for each (history → ultimas_movimentacoes; single case → listar_prazos with processoId).

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