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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds the bulk support note ('aceita processo_ids para batched execution'), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or any other behavioral details, but given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 (one line plus a note), which is efficient. Every sentence provides some value: the purpose and the bulk support caveat. It is not verbose, but could be improved by elaborating on usage in a structured way without losing brevity.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (3 params, no output schema), but the 'query' parameter is completely unexplained, which is a critical gap for an agent to use it correctly. The bulk support note is helpful but does not compensate for the lack of guidance on the 'query' object. Given the sibling tools, more context on how this fits with other processo sub-resources would improve completeness.

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 schema has a 'query' property with additionalProperties (free-form object) that the description does not explain at all—this is a significant gap since 0% schema description coverage means the agent has no idea how to use 'query' or what it filters. The description mentions bulk support but does not explain the relationship between 'processo_id' and 'processo_ids' (e.g., whether processo_ids overrides processo_id). No parameter details beyond the schema.

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 'Mensagens/andamentos de um processo' clearly states that this tool retrieves messages/progress events of a legal process, using the Portuguese term 'andamentos' which means 'developments' or 'progress'. The verb is implied ('get'/'list') and it distinguishes from siblings like easyjur_processo_documentos (documents) and easyjur_processo_partes (parties), but does not explicitly state that it is a retrieval operation, relying on the readOnly hint.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus others such as easyjur_processo_documentos or easyjur_processo_partes. It only mentions bulk support for multiple processos, but gives no context on typical use cases or exclusions. No guidance is provided on how to decide between this and related tools.

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