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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the API endpoint (POST /processo/consulta) and pagination behavior, providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the essential usage details (filter and pagination). It has no wasted words and is easy to scan.

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?

For a search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and how to use it. It could mention the return format (e.g., list of processes), but it's not essential given the purpose is clear.

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 is the only source. It explains filtro as criteria per the API, and pagina/quantidade_registros as pagination. While it doesn't detail the filter structure, it gives basic meaning and direction for all three parameters.

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 searches processes/cases (judicial and extrajudicial) by filter, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like projuris_get_processo (which fetches a specific case) and other consulta tools for different entities.

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 explains when to use this tool: to search by filter criteria, and mentions pagination with pagina/quantidade_registros. It does not explicitly say 'use get_processo for a single case', but the context of searching by filter is clear. It gives adequate usage context.

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