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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return contract (evidenceId + página) which no output schema provides. It does not mention result limits, pagination or whether queries match across all peças by default, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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. The primary capability and scope lead, and the alternative is deferred to the end where it belongs.

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 tells the agent what comes back (trechos with evidenceId and página) and how to escalate to full text via ler_paginas. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing for a 3-parameter read-only search.

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 all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that (e.g., whether query accepts natural-language questions vs. literal strings, or how pecaId filtering interacts with results). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameters.

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?

Specific verb (busca textual) plus resource and scope: 'nos autos de UM processo', which explicitly narrows it away from the broader sibling buscar_no_acervo. It also states the return shape (trechos com evidenceId e página), so an agent knows what it gets without opening the 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 concrete use cases ('localizar citações, CPF, valores e artigos') and an explicit alternative with its own condition: 'para o teor completo de um trecho, use ler_paginas'. The 'UM processo' scoping also implicitly routes multi-process discovery to buscar_no_acervo/buscar_processos.

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