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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the behavior those hints describe. The description adds useful context about the 22+ filters and common query keys, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or how multiple filters combine.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates what the tool does and the main filtering mechanism.

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 read-only list/search tool with annotations and 7 parameters, the description gives a reasonable overview but omits pagination details, the full filter list, and any expected output shape. The presence of page and page_size parameters makes the absence of pagination guidance more noticeable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing common fields inside the query object: numero, parte, cpf, cnpj, responsavel, status, comarca, uf, datas. However, it does not explain top-level parameters cpf, cnpj, number, status, page, page_size, or how they relate to the query object.

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 'Lista/busca processos' (lists/searches lawsuits) and mentions the resource and filtering capability, distinguishing it from siblings like advbox_get_lawsuit, create tools, and movement/history tools. It lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives, so it does not reach the highest bar.

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 phrase 'Filtros comuns via query' implies the intended use for searching/filtering lawsuits by number, party, CPF, CNPJ, status, etc. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or a pointer to advbox_get_lawsuit for retrieving a single known lawsuit.

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