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 meaningful behavioral context beyond that: this is an aggregator that collapses five separate reads into one, and it explicitly bounds its own scope by deferring page text to other tools.

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 the headline value ('FICHA COMPLETA ... em UMA leitura') before the field enumeration, and every clause is informative rather than filler. The caps-lock emphasis and long enumeration make it slightly denser than ideal, but no sentence is disposable.

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?

For a read-only single-param tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned sections in detail and by defining the boundary against full-text navigation. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and know what to expect back.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents processoId and how to obtain it via buscar_processos. With one fully-described param and no added syntax in the description, the baseline for high coverage applies, nudged up because zero parameters need compensation.

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 scoped precisely ('A FICHA COMPLETA de um processo em UMA leitura') and enumerates exactly what it returns (CNJ metadata, parties/lawyers, deadlines, next hearing, movements, autos coverage). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the calls it replaces and the tools to use for page content.

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 an explicit when: use BEFORE navigating the autos. Names the alternatives it substitutes (buscar_processos + listar_pecas + listar_prazos + ultimas_movimentacoes + linha_do_tempo) and routes the agent elsewhere when full text is needed (buscar_autos/ler_paginas). Nothing is left to inference.

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