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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which convey a safe read-only operation. The description adds only the note about accepting processo_ids for bulk execution, which is already implied by the schema definition. It does not disclose any additional behavior such as return format, pagination limits, or error handling, offering minimal value beyond the 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 very short and free of filler, which is a positive aspect. However, it is under-specified, sacrificing essential information for brevity. It does not front-load a clear action or provide structured context, so while not verbose, it does not meet the 'every sentence earns its place' ideal because the sentences do not convey needed details.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and the description provides nearly no explanation of the tool's behavior or parameter semantics, it is severely incomplete. An agent would have to guess what 'query' does, what returns, and how to effectively use the tool. This is far below the minimum viable description for such a tool.

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 for parameter explanations. It only mentions that processo_ids enables batched execution, but fails to explain processo_id (the required parameter) and the query object. This leaves the meaning and usage of most parameters undocumented, which is insufficient for an agent to construct correct calls.

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 'Documentos de um processo' translates to 'Documents of a process' but lacks an explicit verb like 'get', 'list', or 'fetch'. While it indicates the resource (documents associated with a process), it does not clearly state what action the tool performs. The bulk support note adds operational detail but not fundamental purpose. It is not a tautology, but it is vague and fails to distinguish from similar process-related tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions bulk support (accepts processo_ids) but does not explain when batching is appropriate, what the fallback is, or under what conditions this tool should be invoked. There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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