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

The description is otherwise rich, disclosing compact responses, one-pass scanning, default status All, and truncation semantics. However, it repeatedly states results may be partial ('truncado=true ... pode haver outros processos', 'resultado é PARCIAL') while the annotations declare openWorldHint=false, which indicates closed/complete results. This is a direct annotation contradiction, so per rubric the score is 1.

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 long but densely organized: primary buscar behavior first, then alternatives, caveats, and field lists. Every section adds operational value, and important warnings like truncado and default All are placed prominently.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description provides the response envelope (encontrados/nao_encontrados/varredura), field names, the meaning of truncado, and the reasons for partial results. It covers batching, status filtering, pagination, and alternative tools, leaving the agent with enough detail to call and interpret the tool 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates for nearly all parameters: numeros, texto, status, contact_id/tag_id, top_n, cursor, contact_ids/tag_ids, and bulk support. Only `limit` is left somewhat implicit; the '30 números = 1 chamada' hints at batch sizing but does not clearly explain the limit parameter itself.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'buscar: ACHA o processo pelo NÚMERO CNJ' and explains it returns the internal case_id needed by other tools. It clearly separates buscar from the list, count, por_cliente, and novos_por_mes actions, and the flattened-action marker ties it to the tool name.

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 description gives explicit routing guidance: use buscar to find a specific process and 'não pagine list'; use count for totals; use list with filters when truncation makes aggregates unreliable; send all numbers at once to scan once. It also explains when results should not be presented as complete totals.

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