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

Annotations only indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds that info remains available, reopening is external, and processing is asynchronous. It also describes the effect of unlink_from_court. This goes beyond the annotations, though could detail error handling.

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 concise, using a clear opening statement followed by bullet points for parameters and a note on reopening and async processing. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers purpose, use case, parameter details, and behavioral notes (async, reopening). It lacks explicit mention of the return value, but overall is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 fully explains each parameter: case_ids (IDs from astrea_processos, accepts multiple), conviction_amount (optional condemnation value), and unlink_from_court (optional boolean to unlink from court). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it closes/inactivates processes in Astrea in batch, marking them as closed while keeping info available. It specifies the verb (encerrar), resource (processos), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on batch inactivation.

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?

It provides a specific use case ('higienização da carteira para baixar processos finalizados') and notes that reopening is done via the Astrea screen. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare with other tools, but the batch context is clear.

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