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 meaningful context by enumerating exactly what information the tool returns, which is especially valuable because there is no output schema. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 one focused sentence that front-loads the main outcome ('Detalhes completos') and then uses a parenthetical list to convey scope without padding. Every part adds useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the required input and the product content well. It could be slightly more complete by noting the response format or any caveats around availability of data, but the described field list gives an agent enough information to decide whether this tool matches the user's request.

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?

There is no parameter-level description in the schema and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description clarifies that numero_processo is an INPI trademark registration process number, but it does not add format guidance, expected normalization, or examples beyond what the parameter's name already suggests. It partially compensates for schema silence but not fully.

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 the tool returns complete details of an INPI trademark registration process by process number, with a concrete list of included data areas (situação, depósito, concessão, vigência, titulares, classes, petições, publicações). This distinguishes it from siblings such as consultas_marcas or consultas_marcas_busca by focusing on full process-level details for a single process.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you have a specific processo number and need a comprehensive trademark-process dossier. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the 'pelo número do processo' phrasing gives a clear prerequisite and differentiates this from broader search-oriented siblings.

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