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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld=false and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are returned in reverse chronological order and long descriptions come truncated, which tells the agent the return value is lossy and where to go for completeness.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then usage triggers, then the truncation caveat and escape hatch. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return shape (chronological movements each paired with a process) and the truncation limitation. The only unaddressed detail is pagination/windowing behavior, a minor 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with defaults and caps (limite 20/50, desdeDias 7/90). The description only echoes the N-day window and the optional process restriction without adding format or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 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 scope and resource: movements in the acervo or a single process over the last N days, in reverse chronological order, each with its process. It also routes away from itself for full text, distinguishing it from buscar_autos/ler_paginas, though it does not contrast with the similar-sounding linha_do_tempo sibling.

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 concrete triggering scenarios ('alguma novidade?', 'o que movimentou esta semana?') and explicitly names the alternatives (buscar_autos, ler_paginas) for retrieving full document text. No explicit 'when not to use' beyond that, but the routing is clear.

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