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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this consistently by clarifying it does not persist changes and that the lawyer applies them in JusPronto. This workflow boundary and the pre-approval verification note add real context beyond the annotations; return format is left to the output 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core read operation, then the non-persistence caveat and verification pointer. Dense but each clause earns its place; no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it adequately covers purpose, the read-only boundary, and the follow-up verification step. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though a brief note on what 'contexto' contains relative to montar_contexto would close the remaining gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 500–12000 range for limiteContextoChars and the listar_minutas hint for minutaId. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Lê') and resource ('uma seção da minuta canônica, suas afirmações, referências e contexto') and frames the goal ('para redigir a alteração'), so an agent understands it prepares context for drafting. It is distinguishable from checar_peca, which it explicitly names for the verification step, though it does not draw a sharp line against siblings like montar_contexto or minutas_a_redigir.

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 clear context for use ('para redigir a alteração') and a workflow exclusion ('Esta conexão não grava a alteração, que o advogado faz no JusPronto'), plus routes the approval step to checar_peca. It lacks explicit 'when not to use this instead of X' comparisons against other context-loading siblings.

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