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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'complete history' scope and bulk execution behavior, but says nothing about pagination, filtering, or return shape beyond the schema fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a key capability. There is no filler or repetition, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

Despite having pagination parameters, a nested query object, bulk mode, and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, query filter usage, pagination behavior, or how bulk results are structured. Annotations cover safety only, leaving the description incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 for explaining parameters. It only clarifies lawsuit_ids for bulk execution and implies lawsuit_id is the key identifier; page, page_size, and query remain unexplained and their semantics are not compensated for.

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 identifies the resource ('processo') and scope ('Histórico completo'), making it clear this tool retrieves the full history of a lawsuit. 'Bulk support' further distinguishes it from single-item getters. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools such as advbox_lawsuit_movements or advbox_last_movements.

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 bulk support mention provides some usage context: the tool can handle multiple lawsuit_ids in one call. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the movement-specific siblings, and no exclusion criteria or alternatives are named.

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