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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns open warrants and mentions the data source (CNJ), but does not detail output format, error behavior, or side effects. Given annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, highly concise phrase with no redundancy or unnecessary details. It is well-structured and clear for its length.

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 no output schema, the description does not specify response format or whether multiple records are returned. It also lacks explanations for several parameters and any constraints. The sparse information leaves significant gaps for a compliance tool.

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 description only implies CPF and NOME as query parameters via 'por CPF/nome'. It does not explain ALCUNHA, NOMEMAE, NOMEPAI, or the 'completo' flag. With zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the description fails to compensate for the majority of 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving open arrest warrants from CNJ, specifying CPF or name as query criteria. It distinguishes this from sibling compliance tools by focusing on arrest warrants, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'search' or 'query'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest alternative tools for different filtering needs, unlike the high-scoring example.

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