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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by mentioning bulk execution through processo_ids, but it does not describe response shape, pagination, batch limits, or error behavior.

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 two short sentences with no filler and front-loads the core resource meaning. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately concise.

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 tool with three parameters, a nested query object, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It explains neither what 'pedidos' entails nor how query filtering works, leaving important invocation details ambiguous.

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, but it only explains the processo_ids bulk behavior. The required processo_id parameter and the query object are left undocumented, and the relationship between processo_id and processo_ids is unclear.

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 names the resource ('Pedidos de um processo') and adds bulk support, making clear that this tool retrieves requests associated with a legal process. It distinguishes this from sibling subresource tools (documentos, financeiros, partes), though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as easyjur_get_processo or easyjur_list_processos. The bulk-support note implies batched use but does not explain selection criteria or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage context.

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