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

The description adds context beyond annotations by disclosing payment requirements ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago') and stating the data is official and not confidential ('não é dado sigiloso'). It also notes LGPD compliance responsibility. These are helpful operational traits, and they align with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose before adding payment and privacy details. It is not overly verbose, but it packs multiple clauses together, which slightly reduces readability. Still, it is concise and avoids redundancy.

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 tool with 4 unannotated string parameters and no output schema, the description is very incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of parameters, the nature of the query (e.g., how to filter), or what data is returned. The payment and legal notes do not fill the gap, leaving agents unable to confidently construct valid requests.

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 input schema has 4 parameters (termo, data_fim, data_inicio, tipo_filtro) with zero description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of these parameters or their expected formats. The description does not compensate for the schema gap at all, leaving parameter usage entirely ambiguous.

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 queries CVM judged sanctioning processes from an official source ('CVM: Processos Sancionadores Julgados, consulta em fonte oficial'). It specifies the verb 'consulta' and the resource 'Processos Sancionadores Julgados', and it is distinct from sibling tools (which are platform utilities like authenticate, connect).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. It mentions payment and data responsibility but no comparison to alternatives or situational context. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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