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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing non-obvious behavior: a failed task does not roll back the hearing (inspect tarefas[].criada and retry only the missing one), omitting responsible_id parks the hearing on the integration user so it may not appear in the lawyer's agenda, offsets/time zones are ignored, and end defaults to start + 30 min.

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 purpose and the sibling exclusion, then a scannable bullet per parameter — nearly every sentence earns its place. The trailing generic "Bulk support: accepts case_ids, responsible_ids for batched execution" reads as appended boilerplate and never explains how the required case_id interacts with case_ids.

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?

No output schema, but the description compensates by naming the return values (hearing_id, per-task task_id, tarefas[].criada) and pointing at astrea_audiencia_editar/_excluir for follow-up. For a 13-parameter creation tool this is complete enough to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: it documents limits (title 250 chars, location 1500 bytes), enum values for modalidade, exclusion semantics for due_date vs dias_antes, and the nested tarefas shape. Only case_ids/responsible_ids are covered by a single terse "Bulk support" line rather than proper documentation.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Cria uma AUDIÊNCIA no Astrea") and states the side effects on agenda, filter and reports. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling astrea_compromisso_criar with the rule "Use esta tool (e não astrea_compromisso_criar) sempre que for audiência".

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use vs alternative rule against astrea_compromisso_criar, plus a remediation path when a hearing was mistakenly created as an event (find in astrea_agenda, recreate here, delete with astrea_compromisso_excluir, one at a time with user confirmation). Dependencies to other tools (astrea_processos, astrea_responsaveis) are named inline.

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