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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about external official sources, non-confidential data, LGPD responsibility, and pay-per-query behavior. However, it does not disclose operational details such as response format, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 block of four sentences. It front-loads the purpose, but then includes payment and LGPD disclaimers that could be moved to a separate note. It is not overly long but contains extraneous compliance language.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what data is returned, how to interpret the query, or parameter semantics. Some context about the data source and legal aspects is present, but core functional details are missing.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any of the six parameters (a3, a3_pin, login_cpf, login_senha, numero, ano); a3 and a3_pin are especially obscure. There is no compensation for the missing schema metadata.

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 states 'consulta em fonte oficial' (consult in official source) and 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros', making clear it queries official Brazilian sources for process progress. The resource is 'ECRVSP processos andamento', which is specific and distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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 context about payment (prepaid credit) and the lack of platform credentials, but does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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