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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but description adds context about unlocking automation side effects. However, it does not detail error behavior or idempotency. The description adds value 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 dense but clear, front-loading purpose and usage. It could be structured with bullet points for parameters but remains efficient for a single paragraph.

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 16 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, such as the created process ID. It also does not cover potential constraints like uniqueness of title. Additional details on expected output would improve completeness.

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 adds some meaning: explains client identification options (customer_id vs customer_nome) and lists optional judicial fields. But many parameters (polo, objeto, tag_ids, etc.) remain unexplained, leaving gaps.

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 creates a new judicial process in Astrea, uses a specific verb ('cria'), and distinguishes from sibling 'astrea_caso_criar' for extrajudicial cases. It also notes it closes parity with edit/end tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (extracted data, unlocking automation) and what is obligatory (title, client info). Provides clear alternative: for extrajudicial cases use 'astrea_caso_criar'.

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