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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety profile. Description adds that it uses POST and pagination, but does not disclose response format, potential errors, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate for moderate additional context.

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 and front-loaded: it states the action and endpoint first, then clarifies the `filtro` parameter and pagination. Three sentences, 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?

Description covers purpose, endpoint, and pagination, but lacks details on required fields or format for `filtro`, potential error cases, and does not describe return structure (no output schema). Given the tool is a search with nested objects and no schema coverage, completeness is moderate.

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 description must compensate. It explains that `filtro` contains criteria per the API, and discusses `pagina` and `quantidade_registros` for pagination, but does not provide format or examples. This adds some meaning over bare schema, but is insufficient given all parameters are undocumented.

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: searching for persons (clients, parties, lawyers, contacts) using a POST request to /pessoa/consulta, with pagination. It names specific resource types (clientes, partes, advogados, contatos) and distinguishes from siblings like projuris_consulta_processo and projuris_get_pessoa.

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 context that it is a filtered search with pagination, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative search or retrieval tools (e.g., projuris_get_pessoa for direct lookup vs. this for filtered search). Usage context is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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