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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the data is of public access, not private/confidential, that the client is data controller under LGPD, and that payment is required per consultation, adding useful cost and legal context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, access/payment, and legal/data nature. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy, but the third sentence could be considered slightly legalistic, though it earns its place.

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 has no output schema, and the description only mentions a summarized-by-court view. It does not describe the return structure, what 'completo' changes, or any limitations (e.g., which courts). The data-source transparency is good, but missing details on the optional parameter and output.

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 mentions CPF/CNPJ as the query inputs, but does not explain the 'completo' parameter. It also says 'CPF ou CNPJ' (either), which conflicts with the schema's 'required' listing of both Cpf and Cnpj, creating ambiguity. With 0% schema coverage, it fails to adequately describe all parameters.

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 performs a grouped consultation ('Consulta agrupada') of judicial processes by CPF or CNPJ, with a summarized view by court. It specifies the resource (processos judiciais), the input (CPF/CNPJ), and the output format, distinguishing it from platform utility siblings.

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?

It provides context that the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. This is clear usage context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though no direct sibling competitor exists.

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