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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: result limit ('até 100 processos') and returned fields (marca, número, classe, situação, titular). This goes beyond annotations, though pagination and exact matching behavior are not detailed.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds useful information: the target registry, the search mode, the result limit, and the returned fields.

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 selection, the description is sufficient: the tool's purpose, scope, and main output are clear. However, with six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the lack of detail around optional filters and pagination leaves invocation gaps.

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%, and the description only clarifies the core search term ('pelo nome/termo'), likely mapping to the `marca` parameter. The other five parameters (`ncl`, `tipo`, `pagina`, `pedidos_vivos`, `pesquisa_textual`) are left unexplained, so the agent cannot infer their meaning or optional usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Busca') plus resource ('marcas no INPI') and clarifies scope ('pelo nome/termo'), with a clear output summary. It is distinguishable from consultas_marcas_processo, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with consultas_marcas or other siblings.

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 a concrete use case: checking whether a trademark name is already filed or registered ('Útil pra ver se um nome de marca já está depositado ou registrado'). It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full guideline.

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