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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral value on top: results are paginated and sorted by filing date, and DataJud deliberately does not index party name or OAB. That indexing limitation is important context an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and then the boundary. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 eight parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is only partially complete: it conveys the main search facets and pagination/sort behavior but omits guidance on the pagination inputs (from/size) and numero_processo, which an agent would need to call it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it names only three of eight parameters (classe, órgão julgador, assunto) and clarifies they are CNJ table codes. It says nothing about from/size (pagination), sort_desc, tribunal, or numero_processo, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Busca') and resource ('processos em um tribunal') plus the filterable facets (classe, órgão julgador, assunto). It also carves out a clear capability boundary (no party name / OAB), though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling datajud_localizar_processo or datajud_raw_query.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (search by class/judging body/subject) and when-NOT (party name, OAB), routing the agent to an external alternative (MCP djen/legal). It stops short of explaining when to prefer this over the local siblings like datajud_localizar_processo.

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