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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the specific GET endpoint and the keyed-lookup behavior, which is mildly useful but does not go beyond annotations with extra context such as auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant filler. Every word contributes to the minimal but functional definition.

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 simple get-by-code tool, the description is adequate, but it has clear gaps: it does not describe the return value (no output schema exists), and it omits the purpose or behavior of the 'query' parameter. With only one of two parameters addressed and no no-output-schema explanation, this is a minimum viable description.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that 'codigo' is the primary lookup key and appears in the URL path, but it says nothing about the 'query' parameter, which has a nested object structure and remains entirely unexplained. The compensation is partial at best.

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 a specific action ('Busca'), resource ('Assuntos/matérias'), and lookup key ('por código'), and even provides the endpoint path (GET /assunto/{codigo}). It is distinguishable from broader consulta tools because it targets a single code, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as projuris_consulta_assunto. The phrase 'por código' implies you should use it when you already have the code, but no when/when-not boundaries, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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