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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a non-read operation without destructive effects. The description adds that fields follow the official API and that settings are needed for IDs, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply. It adds minimal context beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action. It efficiently includes a pointer to settings and a note about named fields and extra. However, it lacks structured breakdown, but given its brevity, it earns a high score.

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 lawsuit creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain required fields beyond referencing the official API, nor does it mention response format or potential pitfalls. It relies heavily on external settings without detailing how to use them effectively.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'campos nomeados + extra' and points to settings for IDs, but it does not explain the meaning of 'number' or the structure of 'extra'. The guidance is too vague to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Cria um processo' (Creates a lawsuit), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling create tools by focusing on 'processo' (lawsuit) and references the official API and settings for IDs.

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 instructs to use advbox_settings to discover type/responsible IDs, providing a clear preparatory step. It implies create vs. update context through the tool name and sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it. The guidance to send via named fields plus extra is actionable but could be more explicit about alternatives.

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