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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of a GET request reinforces but adds little beyond what behaviors are disclosed. It doesn't describe error handling or side effects, but the annotations already cover safety.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and method, with no filler words. It achieves maximum information density.

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?

While it's a simple read-only GET, the description doesn't cover the return format or the query parameter. With two parameters and no output schema, the minimal description leaves gaps, particularly around the query object, making it incomplete for an agent to use without further schema inspection.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'por código' explaining the 'codigo' parameter but completely ignores the 'query' object parameter. The explanation is partial and insufficient given the low coverage.

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 for an 'Atendimentos' (CRM/relationship) by code, specifying the exact HTTP endpoint GET /atendimento/{codigo}. This distinguishes it from other projuris_get_* tools which target different resources.

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 when you have the code but doesn't explicitly compare to siblings like projuris_consulta_atendimento or mention when not to use it. It lacks explicit guidance on selecting between similar lookup tools.

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