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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the submission is an outbound request to an external team and must be scrubbed of PII (nome, processo, CPF, CNPJ, e-mail, telefone, OAB), which is a real behavioral constraint not encoded anywhere in annotations or 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?

Front-loads the core action, then sequentially layers the trigger rule, the content constraint, and the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with thin annotations, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, gating condition, and content restrictions well. It leaves the category taxonomy and post-submission behavior unexplained, but nothing critical to invoking 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the content rules for the 'texto' param ('frase curta', no PII) and implies 'advogado_concordou' via the agreement clause, but never explains the 'categoria' enum values or their mapping to the five options.

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 (registra) and resource (pedido/sugestão que o Juspronto ainda não atende) directed at the Juspronto team. No sibling tool does anything similar, so it is immediately distinguishable from the whole tool 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 trigger conditions ('Use SOMENTE quando o advogado pedir... ou depois de perguntar a ele e ele concordar') and an explicit exclusion ('Nunca use para registrar a conversa'), so the agent knows both when and when not to call it.

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