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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: the exact return shape (tribunal, numeroProcesso, instancias[]), the conditional appearance of 'ausencia' only on empty results, and the 'instancia_superior' block when a superior-court appeal is registered. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the verb, resource and primary identifiers before moving into output semantics. It is information-dense and mostly earned, though the final sentence on superior-court appeals is long and could be tightened.

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 does the heavy lifting by documenting the return payload and its conditional fields, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It omits details on timeline granularity or pagination, leaving a minor gap.

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 carries the burden, but it only adds the 'número CNJ' format hint for numero_processo; the tribunal enum is fully self-documenting in the schema. It compensates partially but leaves the CNJ format 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Consulta movimentações por número CNJ e tribunal') and immediately scopes it to two identifiers. It actively distinguishes itself from the sibling datajud_get_processo by referencing the shared 'ausencia' diagnosis, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

'Ideal para detectar movimentação nova' gives a clear positive use case, and the cross-reference to datajud_get_processo clarifies the relationship between the two tools. It does not, however, state explicit exclusions or when another sibling (search, localizar) is preferable.

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