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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and idempotent, so the description's extra detail is useful rather than redundant: it explains that a result without id is not readable, that other decisions appear in outras_decisoes_do_processo, and that ids batch execution. No contradiction with the annotations; no harmful side effects are implied.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by precise usage rules. Every sentence adds information: input source, fallback behavior, multi-decision behavior, and bulk support; no wasted words.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, fallback route, and expected response context (full text plus other decisions). The only real gap is the tribunal parameter, but the core invocation path is fully specified.

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 must carry the parameter semantics, and it does for id (from a prior search result), numeracao (CNJ number), and ids (bulk). However, tribunal is never explained, and the relationship between numeracao and the CNJ number is only implicit, leaving part of the schema under-documented.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Lê o INTEIRO TEOR de uma decisão') and explicitly contrasts full text with the resumo, distinguishing it from the search-focused sibling jurisprudencia_buscar. The phrase 'não o resumo' removes ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 states exactly when to call the tool: use the id from a jurisprudencia_buscar result with texto_integral_disponivel: true, or use the CNJ number. It also gives an explicit exclusion and fallback ('Resultado sem id não é legível por aqui, abra a url'), plus guidance for processes with multiple decisions.

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