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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the OData endpoint, consolidated view, and bulk id support, but does not explain response behavior, error cases, authentication needs, or batch size limits. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 and front-loaded: the core purpose and endpoint appear first, followed by expand usage and bulk support. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundant filler. The minor grammar issue in 'um(a) Processos/litígios' does not detract from the structural efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the description provides enough to make a reasonable call: endpoint, id, ids, and $expand. However, it omits semantics for query and $select, and does not mention pagination or response shape. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It explains id, ids via bulk support, and $expand, but leaves query and $select completely unexplained. This is only partial compensation for an otherwise undocumented 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 states a specific action: get a process/litigation by id via the OData endpoint /Litigations/{id}, with a consolidated view. It also mentions $expand and bulk support for ids, which helps distinguish it from list-style siblings like legalone_list_litigations. It is clear but slightly vague about the difference between 'Processos/litígios' and the sibling 'lawsuits' tools.

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 phrase 'por id' and 'OData /Litigations/{id}' clearly indicates this tool is for fetching specific litigations, and 'Bulk support: accepts ids' explains when to use the ids parameter. 'Use $expand para sub-recursos' gives concrete usage guidance. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention list_litigations as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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