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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: results carry an evidenceId ready for chaining into resolver_citacao or ler_paginas, the search is accent-insensitive, and the archive is isolated to this office. It stops short of describing result format or pagination behavior, so it lands just under the top.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: scope first, then the result/chaining contract, then the alternative tool. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (scope + alternative) is front-loaded.

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 helpfully discloses that each result includes an evidenceId for downstream chaining and that the search is accent-insensitive and office-scoped. Combined with fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though return-shape details (fields, ordering) remain unstated.

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%, so consulta, limite, periodo, tipoPeca, and processoId are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints (e.g., what counts as a 'conhecido' process for processoId), so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: textual search across ALL of the office's case files at once, and names the exact sibling it differs from (buscar_autos for a single known process). The quoted example queries ('onde já enfrentamos essa tese?') make the intent unambiguous and let an agent distinguish it from buscar_processos or search without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for cross-office textual search, but 'Para buscar dentro de UM processo conhecido, prefira buscar_autos'. The scoping rule (a process from another office does not exist here) further clarifies the applicable domain, leaving nothing to inference.

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