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

The description creates a new lawsuit but does not disclose side effects, required authentication, non-idempotency, return values, or error behavior. Annotations provide only default false hints, leaving the description to carry the behavioral burden, and it does not go beyond the simple 'Cria' wording.

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 compact with exactly two sentences: the first states the main action and relevant fields, and the second defines the `data` parameter. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 a simple POST wrapper with one object parameter, and the description covers purpose and parameter semantics. However, it omits return behavior, required field guidance, and error or permission context. The absence of an output schema makes some of those omissions more significant, but the description is adequate at a basic level.

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 input schema only defines `data` as an open-ended object, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining that `data` is the entity body of the Lawsuits API and points to the official API for the exact format. It also gives concrete example fields, which helps the agent understand what to pass.

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 starts with the verb 'Cria' and specifies the resource 'Processos judiciais' (lawsuits), plus module-specific fields like valor da causa, partes, pedidos. It also identifies the underlying endpoint via OData POST /Lawsuits, clearly distinguishing it from other create tools for different entities.

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?

No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as legalone_create_litigations or legalone_update_lawsuits. The only hint is the verb and resource, which is insufficient for navigating the large sibling set, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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