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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description explains both sides of that profile by disclosing that it writes a conference report and returns a verificationId, while explicitly stating it does not alter the piece or the case files. It also lists the possible verdict outcomes, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage timing, then side effects and return value, in three dense sentences with no filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 compensates by naming the return artifacts (per-claim verdicts with their four categories, and the verificationId cited by the minuta) and by stating the write side effect and its limits. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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 processoId, tipoPeca, claims and textoCompleto. The description reinforces what is checked (evidenceIds, dates, values, required fields of the type) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 precise verb and object ('Confere cada afirmação de fato de um rascunho de peça contra os autos') plus the checking dimensions (evidenceId, datas, valores, campos obrigatórios) and the per-claim verdict output. It is clearly a verification/audit tool, distinct from the drafting and retrieval siblings in the list.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Use antes de entregar o rascunho ao advogado e antes de salvar_minuta', which places it in the workflow. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the full 5.

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