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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: binding súmulas are included, full text appears in the 'ementa' when available, and cancelled/repealed súmulas are marked in the text. This adds real operational context without contradicting the 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the sibling relationship and then useful output behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search tool, the description is largely complete: it defines the query input, notes the fixed type, and explains key output behavior (ementa content and cancellation marking). It could elaborate on response format or max semantics, but the shortcut reference to jurisprudencia_buscar compensates for much of that missing detail.

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 carries much of the burden. It clarifies 'termo' as the search keyword and implies the fixed 'tipo=Súmula', but it does not explain the 'max' parameter. The required parameter is clear, while the optional max remains only inferable from its name and number type.

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: 'Busca SÚMULAS (incluindo vinculantes) por termo.' It goes further and explicitly distinguishes itself from jurisprudencia_buscar by declaring itself an 'Atalho' with a fixed 'tipo=Súmula', so there is no ambiguity about what it does or how it differs from the sibling tool.

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 clear usage context: it is a shortcut to jurisprudencia_buscar for Súmula-only searches, with 'tipo=Súmula' pre-applied. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like jurisprudencia_documento, but the shortcut framing makes the intended scope reasonably clear.

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