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

The description adds value beyond annotations by warning that data may be incomplete/outdated and advising confirmation on official court websites. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior, so the description's caveat about data quality provides useful behavioral context.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then accepted inputs, return format, and a warning. Every sentence adds value, and no filler is present.

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 description explains the main input options and return format (list of processes with number, parties, court) and includes a quality warning. However, with 11 parameters and no output schema, it leaves several parameters unexplained and does not detail the output structure beyond a list and warning. Moderate 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 description only explains 5 of 11 parameters (nome, cnpj, cpf, nome_titular, numero_processo), with schema description coverage at 0%. Parameters like max_processos, incluir_socios, sigla_tribunal are left undocumented, requiring the agent to infer from names. This is insufficient given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool provides a legal X-ray of a person or company, discovering lawsuits and optionally progress. It specifies accepted identifiers (name, CPF, CNPJ, or case number) and the return format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cpf_processos or processos_buscar_por_documento, which have overlapping functionality.

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 instructs to provide only one identifier ('informe APENAS um') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for CPF-specific queries). There is no mention of prerequisites or context-specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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