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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds behavior the annotations do not: the id already encodes the tribunal so it need not be passed, results lacking an id cannot be read, and multiple decisions on a process appear in outras_decisoes_do_processo. That is substantive extra context beyond structured fields.

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 the core behavior (reads the FULL text, not the summary), then routes from the sibling result, then the fallback, then the bulk note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with no output schema and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: input provenance, the tribunal-encoded-in-id detail, the no-id fallback, and the multi-decision note.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description must carry the full burden. It clarifies id (encodes tribunal) and numeracao (CNJ number) and mentions bulk ids support, but tribunal is never explained and the relationship between id/ids is left implicit. It partially compensates but leaves clear 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: reads the FULL text of a decision (the acórdão, not the summary). This distinguishes it from jurisprudencia_buscar, which returns search results with a summary, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 tells the agent which inputs to pass and where they come from: the id from jurisprudencia_buscar results where texto_integral_disponivel: true, or the CNJ number. Also gives a when-not condition: results without an id are not readable here, open the url instead.

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