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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the 10,000-result pagination ceiling, the CNJ API's slowness on large indices, and the recommendation to keep size small and _source narrow.

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-loaded with the tool's identity and role, then each following sentence delivers a distinct operational fact (query scoping, pagination, performance). No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema raw query tool, the description covers the main failure modes an agent would hit (misusing `query`, exceeding 10k without search_after, slow large queries). It omits any hint about the response shape and the `from` parameter, but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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 across 7 parameters, the description carries the burden and does so for the trickiest ones: it clarifies that `query` holds only the search clause (not a full ES body) and that size/sort/_source/search_after belong in their own fields. It does not explain `from` or the sort value format in detail, leaving some gaps.

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 (sends a raw Elasticsearch query to the court index) and explicitly frames itself as the 'escape hatch' advanced option, which distinguishes it from the structured datajud_search sibling.

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 'escape hatch'/'Avançado' framing implies when to reach for it over the structured search tool, and it gives concrete conditions for using search_after (beyond 10,000 results) and small size. It never explicitly names datajud_search as the default alternative, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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