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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that a not-found result returns an `ausencia` block with specific reason codes rather than an empty list. It also warns that `nao_publicado` does not imply the process does not exist, which is critical for correct interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and then adds only high-value behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, especially the explanation of the `ausencia` block and the secrecy-of-justice caveat, without excessive padding.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does a good job summarizing returns: metadata, movements, and the absence block with reason codes. It does not mention authentication requirements or pagination, but given the focused lookup nature of the tool and the readOnly annotations, the description is substantially complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning to `numero_processo` by stating it is the unique CNJ number and accepts masked/unmasked formats. The `tribunal` parameter is left to the enum, but the schema already enumerates valid values, so the main formatting ambiguity is addressed.

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 verb and resource: it looks up a process by the unique CNJ number and returns metadata plus movements, which is specific and actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like datajud_search or datajud_movimentos, but the unique-number lookup makes the purpose distinct enough.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you have a CNJ number and a specific tribunal. It provides post-query guidance about reading the `ausencia` block before retrying elsewhere, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like datajud_search or datajud_movimentos.

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