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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the cost model (prepaid per query), authentication requirements (no platform credentials), data classification (public, not confidential), and LGPD compliance responsibilities. No contradiction with 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 a single run-on sentence mixing purpose, payment terms, data classification, and LGPD legal language. It is not well-structured and lacks front-loading. While not excessively long, the dense, comma-separated clauses reduce readability.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what information the consultation returns, how to form a valid query (e.g., at least one identifier), and any limitations. It covers source, payment, and data type, but omits query semantics and output expectations, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain any of the five parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome_mae, nome_parte, numero_processo), whether at least one is required, or how they can be combined. This is a major gap for a tool with no required parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a consultation for CNJ SEEU processes from an official source, using 'consulta' as the verb and 'Processos' as the resource. It is clear but could be more specific about what process data is returned. No sibling tool offers similar functionality, so differentiation is not needed.

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 provides useful usage context: no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit per query, and the data is the same public information available to citizens. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but there are no relevant alternatives among the siblings, so clear context suffices.

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