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

Annotations cover the read-only/safe profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it is instantâneo, does not consume orçamento de leitura because the text was computed at ingestion time, the updated=false flag means new pages arrived after the summary, and PROCESSO_SIGILOSO is returned with an explicit recovery path via buscar_autos and ler_paginas.

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-loaded with the priority cue and the canonical user phrasings, and every sentence carries routing or behavioral information. It is dense and long-ish, but the length is justified by the amount of disambiguation packed in; a minor trim of repeated 'NÃO use' framing would tighten it further.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully compensates by enumerating the return payload, the per-peça summaries, the updated flag semantics, and the sigiloso failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to call it or interpret the result 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating it is the ID obtained via buscar_processos. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing nuance for processoId, so the 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?

States a specific verb (devolve o resumo já pronto) and enumerates the returned contents (partes, pedidos, fase atual, valores, últimos eventos, resumo por peça), which makes it unmistakable versus siblings like detalhe_processo or processo_status. It also names the exact user phrasings it answers.

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 'PRIMEIRA OPÇÃO' positioning plus two hard exclusions routing to buscar_autos (fato/valor/trecho específico) and analisar_processo (estado da arte com citação verificável). Conditional fallback behavior for segredo de justiça is also specified.

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