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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Beyond these, the description adds critical behavioral context: no credentials required, prepaid credit/payment model, data is public access (not private), and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotations by addressing authentication, financial implications, and data handling, which are valuable for the agent.

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 at three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The additional sentences about hosting, payment, and LGPD are informative and not redundant. A minor issue is the legal disclaimer, but it's relevant for compliance and not excessive.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and the description covers many contextual aspects (payment, auth, data subject). However, it fails to explain the 'completo' parameter and does not resolve the contradiction between 'ou' in the description and the schema's required both Cpf and Cnpj. With no output schema, more detail on response structure would help, though 'com detalhes por processo' gives a hint. Overall, the description is incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'CPF ou CNPJ' but this conflicts with the schema, where both Cpf and Cnpj are required. The boolean 'completo' parameter is not explained at all, despite the description's phrase 'com detalhes por processo' possibly alluding to it. The description adds little semantic value and leaves parameter usage ambiguous.

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's purpose: 'Consulta completa dos processos judiciais de uma pessoa ou empresa a partir do CPF ou CNPJ, com detalhes por processo.' It names a specific verb (consultar), resource (processos judiciais), and input scope (CPF/CNPJ). It also distinguishes from siblings, as none of the listed siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) relate to judicial process consultation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' and 'Consulta informação de ACESSO PÚBLICO em bases e fontes oficiais.' It sets expectations for authentication and payment but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives. Since there are no similar sibling tools, the lack of exclusion criteria is acceptable.

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