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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method (POST) and the role of 'filtro' as the body, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors like response structure, pagination defaults, or rate limits. It adds some context but not rich detail, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the HTTP method, URL pattern, filter body, resource naming convention, and usage rule. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Busca genérica'). No fluff.

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's generic nature, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the resource pattern, the filter mechanism, and the condition for use (no named tool). It lacks explicit mention of pagination, but the schema already covers that. Since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned the response type, but for a generic search tool, this is not critical. The presence of many sibling tools makes the 'use for entities without named tool' instruction crucial, and it is included. Overall, it is fairly complete for its purpose.

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 must compensate. It explains 'recurso' as a kebab-case resource name with examples, and 'filtro' as the body filter. It does not mention 'pagina' or 'quantidade_registros', but these are common pagination parameters likely understood from their names. The description covers the required parameter and the primary filter, but leaves the optional pagination params undocumented, which is a partial gap. A baseline 3 is fair given the partial compensation.

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 it's a generic search tool ('Busca genérica') that performs a POST to /<resource>/consulta with a filtro in the body. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Use para entidades sem tool de consulta nomeada', making it clear when this tool applies versus the named projuris_consulta_* 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 description provides a specific usage guideline: use for entities without a named query tool. It also gives examples of resource names (processo, pessoa, intimacao) and names the HTTP method, which helps the agent understand the invocation pattern. This is explicit and actionable.

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