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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent profile. The description adds substantial behavioral context: conditional ausencia output and its reasons, the public-API secrecy caveat, recurrence numbering persistence, and instancia_superior reporting.

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 first sentence front-loads purpose and return shape. The rest is dense but purposeful, covering the absence block, recurrence caveat, and alternative tool; there is minor repetition around the absence block.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the main return fields, conditional absence data, and key edge cases. It leaves minor gaps, such as the meaning of total/count and fuller tribunal-parameter semantics.

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 explains that numero_processo accepts masked or unmasked input and ties tribunal values to tst/stj recurrence behavior, but it does not document the tribunal enum semantics or other parameter constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it fetches a process by CNJ number and court, and it enumerates key return fields. It also distinguishes itself from datajud_localizar_processo by routing instance-identification queries there.

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?

Provides clear usage context, including that missing results should be inspected before retrying another tool and that datajud_localizar_processo should be used to see the current instance. It does not explicitly contrast with datajud_search or datajud_movimentos, but the intended context is clear.

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