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

Annotations only declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation; the description adds the behaviour that actually matters — the link expires in 15 minutes, works for a single upload, requires the lawyer to be logged into JusPronto, and the file content is not read by the agent. It also enumerates the status state machine (AGUARDANDO, ENVIANDO, RECEBIDO, EXPIREADO), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the core promise in the first sentence and the two actions broken out by label. Some of the action-specific phrasing duplicates the enum descriptions in the schema, so a small amount of text is redundant rather than essential.

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, so the description carries the return contract — send link, envioId, destination folder, and the status values — and it does so fully, along with the human-in-the-loop step. Nothing needed to invoke either action correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds provenance the schema lacks: processoId comes from buscar_processos and envioId is the value returned by preparar_envio. It also ties each parameter to its action, which helps prevent cross-action misuse.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Anexa um arquivo ... à pasta de um processo') plus the crucial qualifier that the agent never receives the file itself. The two modes (preparar_envio, status) are each described with their inputs, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does 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 an explicit sequence: call preparar_envio, show the link to the lawyer, and only call status after the lawyer says the file was sent. It also names buscar_processos as the source of processoId, routing the agent to the sibling that supplies the required input.

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