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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral constraint: it deliberately omits rankings and counts that could enable professional comparison, citing OAB Provimento 205/2021. It also clarifies that the OAB inscription is returned only 'quando verificada', which is useful data-quality context.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the positive return fields, and the second immediately states what is not returned and why. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-parameter read-only profile lookup with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, exclusions, the verification caveat, and regulatory rationale. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single required parameter 'handle' is already documented with 'sem arroba'. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description names the exact resource ('perfil público de quem participa da rede') and enumerates the returned fields: nome, apresentação, OAB inscription when verified, and follower count. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from comparison/ranking tools by stating it does not return rankings, response volume, or other comparative counts.

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?

It clearly implies use when a public jurist profile is needed and warns that this tool is not for ranking or comparison metrics. However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool or explicitly say 'use X instead', so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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