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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description correctly focuses on substance: the official source (DJEN/CNJ), recency-first ordering, the official link per item, and that individual party names are abbreviated. It omits what happens with no matches and whether results are paginated or capped.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then return fields, ordering, then usage. The opening sentence is long but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (fields, ordering, links, name abbreviation). Only edge-case behavior — empty result sets and volume limits — is left unaddressed.

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 `uf` and `number` are already well documented with format examples. The description only implicitly links them to 'inscrição da OAB' and adds no extra syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista os processos em que uma inscrição da OAB aparece') and pins down the data source (publicações do DJEN/CNJ). It also enumerates the returned fields, ordering, and privacy treatment, which clearly separates it from the sibling calculator tools.

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?

'Use quando a pessoa informar a OAB e quiser ver os processos dela' gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., searching by party name or case number instead of OAB), so the routing guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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