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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining exactly what is returned (pages and acórdãos citing the same devices) and the 'grau' concept, which goes beyond the structured annotation data without contradicting it.

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 two well-organized sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and the output, the second explains the practical cascading use case. Every sentence contributes necessary orientation with 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 list tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is complete. It identifies the supported entity types, the nature of results, and the intended use case, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both 'entidade' and 'limite' are already documented in the input schema. The tool description refers generically to 'norma, dispositivo, súmula, tema ou acórdão', matching the schema's examples, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista quem se apoia numa norma, dispositivo, súmula, tema ou acórdão', then specifies the output as pages and STJ acórdãos with a degree of overlap. It clearly communicates the tool's role as citation-impact analysis, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like buscar_paginas or search.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario: 'É a base do efeito cascata: decisão nova sobre um dispositivo → páginas a rever.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar cases.

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