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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior; the description adds beyond that by disclosing the result shape (excerpts + diary URL). It does not discuss pagination or limits, but this is a minor gap given the strong annotation coverage.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core scope, and every sentence adds value: use cases, DJEN contrast, output summary, and query tip.

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 search tool with no output schema, it already conveys the main purpose, typical uses, and output contents. The main completeness gap is the underdocumented optional parameters, but the core workflow is sufficiently clear.

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?

The description explains the main required parameter ('termo') and advises quoted exact-name searches, which adds real meaning beyond the bare schema. However, with 0% schema-description coverage, it leaves size, data_fim/data_inicio, and territory_ids without any behavioral or formatting guidance.

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 identifies a search action ('Busca') over a specific resource ('diários oficiais MUNICIPAIS'), and distinguishes it from DJEN by noting the judicial vs. municipal scope. It also names concrete use cases (licitações, nomeações, contratos, sanções municipais), so the tool's function is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for non-judicial municipal gazette mentions and names DJEN as the complement/alternative for judicial content. It also gives a practical query tip: use quotes for exact names.

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