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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds transparency about payment per query, absence of platform credentials, and adherence to LGPD for data handling. This goes beyond the annotations, clarifying side effects and data governance.

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 repetitive (e.g., 'consulta em fonte oficial' and 'Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais') and includes legal boilerplate that could be condensed. It is not overly long but lacks streamlined structure.

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?

While the description provides context about payment and data processing, it does not specify the expected output format, error handling, or parameter details. This leaves significant gaps for a query tool, making it incomplete for robust agent usage.

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?

The single parameter 'cns' has no description in the schema or in the tool description. Its meaning and format are entirely ambiguous, making it impossible for an agent to correctly supply the value without prior knowledge.

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 clearly states that the tool queries details of extrajudicial services from the official CNJ source, using the verb 'consultar' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'connect' by its focus on data retrieval.

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 lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment and official sources but does not provide conditions or examples for appropriate usage, leaving the decision to the agent.

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