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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description discloses the paid-broker dependency and the fallback behavior when `nome` is omitted. This adds meaningful context about external prerequisites and failure modes. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded, immediately announcing the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: what the tool does, why `nome` is needed, and what happens when it is missing. No filler or redundant content.

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 a 2-parameter read-only search tool, the description covers core behavior, parameter dependency, and fallback output. It does not describe the success output format or return fields, and there is no output schema to compensate, so a small completeness gap remains.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partly by explaining that `nome` is recommended and required for resolution without a paid broker. However, the `cpf` parameter itself lacks format guidance (e.g., digits only, masking) and the exact role of `cpf` in the lookup remains under-specified.

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 states a specific action ('busca os processos') with a clear resource (processos da pessoa) and scope (Diário/DJEN), and clarifies that discovery works via person name rather than public CPF-to-name mapping. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool cpf_validar, which is about CPF validation.

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 explicit usage guidance: inform the `nome` parameter because CPF-to-name is not public data; without `nome`, the tool only works if a paid broker is configured, otherwise it returns an instruction requesting the name. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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