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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the zero-parameter default behavior and the fact that the returned processoId is the required input for every other tool, which is not inferable from annotations or schema.

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 sentences with the entry-point role front-loaded, then the inputs, then the downstream contract, then the fallback. No filler and no repetition of schema detail.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the essential return contract (processoId plus recent processes when unfiltered). It stops short of describing result field shape or pagination semantics beyond the schema's limite cap, a minor gap for a 5-param discovery tool.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including the search scope of each. The description restates the same lookup keys with only slightly extra nuance ('com ou sem máscara'), so a 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 ('encontre processos') and enumerates the four lookup keys (CNJ number, client name, folder number, free term). It also positions itself as the entry point distinct from siblings that require a processoId, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any 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 labels itself 'PONTO DE PARTIDA' and names the six downstream tools (processo_status, listar_pecas, buscar_autos, ler_paginas, resolver_citacao, analisar_processo) whose input comes from this call. It also defines the no-argument fallback ('devolve os processos mais recentes'), removing ambiguity about when to call it.

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