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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the basic behavioral safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'disponíveis' and does not explain pagination, filtering, or return behavior, but there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single short phrase with no filler, and the main verb is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being information-dense.

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?

There is no output schema, and the optional query parameter is completely unexplained, so the agent cannot predict the returned data or how to narrow the result. The annotations cover safety, but the tool description is too sparse for confident invocation beyond the basic purpose.

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?

The only parameter is an optional nested 'query' object, and the schema-description coverage is 0%. The description says nothing about what the query object means, what keys are allowed, or how it affects the list of tribunais, leaving the agent completely without semantic guidance for the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource ('tribunais/órgãos disponíveis'), so the agent can understand this is a court/org listing tool. It is distinct from sibling list tools by resource type, though it does not describe any additional scope or filtering behavior beyond 'disponíveis'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the resource name and sibling context, which is weak guidance for an agent choosing among many list_* tools.

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