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

Annotations cover the read-only/safe profile, but the description adds crucial non-obvious behavior: it is instantaneous and consumes no reading budget because the text was pre-computed at ingestion time, and it discloses the staleness signal. This is exactly the kind of operational context structured fields 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?

Front-loads the primary use case and routes to alternatives in a dense but well-organized block. The 'atualizado false' note is appended as a trailing clause that could be integrated more cleanly, but overall no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, cost model, staleness behavior, and explicit sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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% and the single parameter already documents that the ID comes from buscar_processos. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('devolve o resumo já pronto') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (partes, pedidos, fase atual, valores, últimos eventos). It explicitly positions itself as 'PRIMEIRA OPÇÃO' and names the siblings it is not (buscar_autos, analisar_processo).

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?

Explicit when-to-use (resuma o processo, do que se trata, me atualiza), when-not-to-use with named alternatives for each exclusion (buscar_autos for specific facts, analisar_processo for verifiable citations), plus an edge-case rule for the 'atualizado false' flag.

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