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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: search is limited to the imported acervo ("Busca só no acervo importado") and describes the return shape with evidenceId and page, plus the confirmation behavior of the tribunal fallback.

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?

Purpose and output are front-loaded, and each sentence carries routing information without repetition. It is fairly dense with three distinct clauses, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description still explains what comes back (trechos, evidenceId, página), where the search applies, and which sibling to use for full text or tribunal-level search. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 query, processoId and pecaId are already documented. The description reinforces the single-process scope but does not add syntax, format or semantics for query or pecaId beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Busca textual nos autos de UM processo") and specifies the returned artifacts ("trechos com evidenceId e página"). The uppercase UM and the named alternatives (ler_paginas, autos_tribunal) make it clearly distinguishable from siblings.

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 when to use it ("localizar citações, CPF, valores e artigos") and routes to the right alternative for full text ("para o teor completo use ler_paginas"). It also handles the fallback case: when the imported acervo lacks the file, follow the guidance or use autos_tribunal, which requires prior confirmation.

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