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 useful behavioral context by disclosing the return shape (full excerpt plus direct page link), which matters because there is no output schema to convey it.

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 short sentences, purpose first and usage second, with no redundant or filler text. Every clause carries 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 one-parameter read-only resolver with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It omits failure behavior for malformed or unknown evidenceIds, which is the only meaningful 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% and the single parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description restates the evidenceId format (processo://...) but adds no new syntax, constraints, or validity rules, 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 gives a specific verb+resource: it resolves an evidenceId (processo://...) and returns the full excerpt plus a direct page link. That is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as ler_paginas or checar_peca.

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 states a trigger condition ('Use quando precisar conferir uma citação'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer why this is preferable to ler_paginas when both touch page content.

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