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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the detail that it uses POST (unusual for a query but relevant for API calls) and explains pagination behavior, providing context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and immediately front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy, only adding essential parameter clarifications. Every word 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and parameters sufficiently for basic use, but it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., list of assuntos, structure of returned objects). This is a notable gap, as agents cannot predict the return format without additional assumptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates minimally: it identifies 'filtro' as API-defined criteria and explains the pagination parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of 'filtro' (e.g., possible keys or value formats), leaving significant ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the Projuris API.

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 searches for 'Assuntos/matérias' using a filter, with a specific HTTP method and endpoint (POST /assunto/consulta). The verb 'Busca' plus the resource 'Assuntos' unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like projuris_consulta_processo or projuris_consulta_tarefa.

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 specifies that 'filtro' follows API criteria and that pagination is done via 'pagina' and 'quantidade_registros', implying when to use this tool (search for assuntos). However, it does not explicitly provide exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling context rather than receiving direct guidance.

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