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 the HTTP GET method and resource path, which is mildly useful, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as return format, pagination, or error conditions.

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, compact sentence that communicates the core action, target resource, identifier, and HTTP endpoint with no wasted words or redundant content.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic single-record GET operation, but it leaves gaps: no guidance on the 'query' parameter, no differentiation from the consulta tool, and no indication of what the response contains. It is minimally viable but not richly complete.

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 gives meaning to the required 'codigo' parameter ('por código'), but the optional 'query' parameter is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 action ('Busca'), the resource ('Intimações/publicações'), and the lookup mechanism ('por código'), with the endpoint explicitly shown. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like projuris_consulta_intimacao, so it misses the top score.

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 phrase 'por código' implies this tool is for retrieving a specific intimação/publicação by its code, providing basic usage guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer this over the consulta siblings or mention any exclusions/alternatives.

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