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

Annotations already confirm a safe read-only operation, but the description adds important behavior: merged chronological ordering, period filtering, separate pecasSemData handling, and the need to call detalhe_processo for teorEventoId content. It does not describe limit truncation behavior, though that is covered by the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation, then adds usage triggers, routing guidance, and the special pecasSemData caveat. Every sentence carries useful selection or invocation information.

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 complex merged timeline tool without an output schema, the description explains the main return shape, the special no-date peças map, and how to follow up on available event content. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it does not enumerate all returned event fields.

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 the schema already documents processoId, desde, ate, and limite with formats. The description reinforces period filtering and the single-process scope but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it builds the timeline of ONE process, merging andamentos, audiências, and prazos chronologically. It clearly distinguishes the tool from alternatives by directing other document needs to buscar_autos or ler_paginas.

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?

It gives concrete usage phrases such as "linha do tempo do caso" and "histórico do processo", plus a period-filtering use case. It names alternatives for other peças, but does not explicitly compare against siblings like ultimas_movimentacoes or listar_prazos.

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