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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, and clarifies the types of entities covered. It does not disclose rate limits, permissions, or return format, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It includes parenthetical examples and an endpoint without waste.

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 reasonably complete for a simple get-by-code operation, with the HTTP endpoint and entity types clarified. However, it omits any mention of the 'query' parameter, which is part of the schema, and does not state what the response contains. For a simple read, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'codigo' is the lookup key via 'por código' and the endpoint, but provides no information about the 'query' parameter (which is optional and not mentioned at all). The description fails to explain a required aspect of the schema.

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 operation: 'Busca' (searches) a 'Pessoa' (person) by 'código' (code), with the HTTP endpoint '/pessoa/{codigo}'. It specifies the resource and examples (clientes, partes, advogados, contatos), distinguishing it from sibling tools like projuris_get_processo.

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 the usage context (when you have a person's code), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like projuris_consulta_pessoa or projuris_create_pessoa. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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