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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which already communicate safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method (POST) and endpoint, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It implies a read operation despite POST, which aligns with readOnlyHint. No contradictions, no additional behavioral info like filters applicability or response format, but with annotations present, the bar is lower and description credit is reasonable.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. It states the main action, endpoint, and key parameters without waste. Every sentence adds value.

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 low param coverage, but the description covers the core purpose, endpoint, and pagination. Sibling tools exist for related queries, but the description provides enough for a basic query tool. It lacks details on the shape of `filtro` or response examples, but for a filter-query tool with read-only annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke.

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% and there are 3 parameters, but the description names two parameters (`filtro`, `pagina`, `quantidade_registros`) and explains their roles: `filtro` = criteria per API, pagination with `pagina`/`quantidade_registros`. This adds meaning beyond the schema (which only gives types), but it does not detail the structure of `filtro` or value constraints. Baseline for low coverage is that description must compensate; here it partially does, but incomplete.

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 'Busca Andamentos/movimentações do processo por filtro' (searches process updates/movements by filter), specifying the HTTP endpoint (POST /andamento/consulta-geral). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'andamento' specifically, but does not explicitly contrast with similar consulta tools (e.g., projuris_consulta_processo). Still, the purpose is clear.

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 basic usage context: use filters to query, paginate with `pagina` and `quantidade_registros`. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use projuris_get or projuris_consulta), nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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