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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are thread paths, content is reader questions answered by verified lawyers, and the tool returns data intended as input for ler_duvida. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool searches, what it returns, how the result is used, and how it differs from the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place without repetition.

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 search tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, result format, domain, and sibling relationship. The note that thread paths feed into ler_duvida completes the practical invocation flow.

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 parameter descriptions are already meaningful, including an example for 'consulta' and constraints for 'limite'. The tool description itself does not add much parameter-level detail, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Busca') with a clear resource ('dúvidas jurídicas publicadas na rede social do portal') and states the language scope ('em português'). It also distinguishes itself from buscar_paginas by explicitly separating reader-generated content from editorial content.

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?

The description names the alternative tool (buscar_paginas) and gives the criterion for choosing: reader Q&A content goes here, editorial content goes to buscar_paginas. It also explains that the returned thread paths feed into ler_duvida, giving clear downstream context.

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