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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the opaque result ID format (processo:<id>, pagina:<evidenceId>) and the fact they are consumable by fetch, which tells the agent how to act on results.

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 with no filler; the scope statement comes first and the handoff detail second. Every clause earns its place.

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 a 1-parameter schema, full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call and chain the tool. The one real gap is disambiguation from the crowded set of sibling search tools, which matters for selection.

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 query parameter is already documented with accepted forms (CNJ, cliente, pasta, palavra-chave). The description adds no additional semantics for the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a two-part resource (processos and páginas dos autos), which is clearer than the bare name 'search'. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many overlapping siblings (buscar_processos, buscar_autos, buscar_no_acervo), so an agent cannot tell which search surface to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the closely related search tools. The only routing signal is the downstream hint that returned IDs 'podem ser passados para fetch', which helps chaining but not selection.

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