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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: payment via prepaid credit, public-access data from official sources, and LGPD compliance responsibility. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional operational and legal details are relevant, though the LGPD sentence could be seen as slightly verbose for a tool description. Overall, concise and well-structured.

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?

It covers purpose, access method, payment, and legal aspects, which is sufficient for a read-only tool. However, the 'completo' parameter is not explained, and with no output schema, the description does not mention return values or response format, leaving some 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%, but the description only mentions CPF/CNPJ, not the 'completo' boolean parameter. It also does not explain that both Cpf and Cnpj are required (which is unusual) or any relationship between them. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description states 'Consulta simplificada dos processos judiciais de uma pessoa ou empresa a partir do CPF ou CNPJ' – clear verb (consulta), resource (processos judiciais), and identifier (CPF/CNPJ). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on judicial process lookup.

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 implies usage context by noting 'Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago', indicating no authentication needed and prepaid billing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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