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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description goes well beyond that by explaining the possible outcomes (CONFIRMADO, DIVERGENCIA, NAO_ENCONTRADO, INDISPONIVEL), clarifying that NAO_ENCONTRADO only means not found in the covered scope, and warning that INDISPONIVEL should not be treated as nonexistence and should be retried.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and is generally free of filler. However, the list of return codes is dense in a single paragraph and could be more scannable, though every sentence provides useful information.

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 must explain return values, and it does so clearly for all four outcome states plus the covered scope. Combined with the read-only and open-world annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a citation, process number, or excerpt to verify. The description adds examples of citation types (número de processo, acórdão, tese) but does not provide syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 (verifica) and resource (citação de jurisprudência brasileira na base JuriBase de fontes oficiais). It clearly distinguishes verification from generic search in substance, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling tool buscar_jurisprudencia.

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?

Explicitly says it is useful to check a citation before presenting it to the user, or when the user provides a citation to verify. This gives clear context for use, but it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool.

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