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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by revealing the HTTP method/endpoint (POST /tarefa/consulta-com-paginacao), explaining that 'filtro' accepts API-defined criteria, and noting pagination via 'pagina' and 'quantidade_registros'. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits or authentication details.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and endpoint, the second explains the key parameters. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no fluff, and 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?

For a read-only query tool with good annotations and a simple pagination pattern, the description covers the essential aspects: the task search, the endpoint, the filter concept, and pagination. It does not describe the return format or the structure of 'filtro', but given that no output schema is provided and the tool is a standard search, this is acceptable. It could be more detailed, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description adds some meaning to parameters: it states that 'filtro' is the filter criteria according to the API, and that 'pagina'/'quantidade_registros' are for pagination. Since the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), this helps, but the description of 'filtro' is vague ('conforme a API') and does not detail its structure or constraints, so it only partially compensates.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Busca Tarefas' (searches tasks) and specifies the task types (compromissos, prazos, providências). It also names the exact endpoint (POST /tarefa/consulta-com-paginacao), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other entities like processos, pessoas, and contratos.

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 implies usage: it is for searching tasks with filters and pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like projuris_create_tarefa or other consulta tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough 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.