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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Busca' and GET method align without contradiction. It adds minimal extra context (e.g., coverage of both judicial and extrajudicial cases) but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or response behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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-loaded with the core action and endpoint, containing no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise and readable.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format or included data, but it is silent on that. It also fails to explain the 'query' parameter, leaving the tool's full behavior under-specified for an agent.

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 clarifies that 'codigo' is the search key, but it does not mention the 'query' object parameter at all, leaving a required portion of the schema undocumented and ambiguous.

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 searches for a Process/case (judicial and extrajudicial) by code, with the specific endpoint 'GET /processo/{codigo}' provided. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from generic search 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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as projuris_consulta_processo or other consulta tools. It only states the action but lacks contextual or exclusionary instructions.

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