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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail about the output (title, summary, highlighted excerpts, links), which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention any potential side effects or limitations, but since annotations cover safety, this is sufficient. It adds value with return format details.

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 but packs essential info: purpose, base options, and return fields. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Busca'. Every clause adds value without redundancy. It's concise and efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no nested objects), the description covers the core search capability, base choices, and return format. However, it omits how pagination parameters (inicio, tamanho) work)Skip, which might be needed for large result sets. It also doesn't mention any limitations like rate limits. Yet, for a read-only search tool, this is reasonably complete. Slight gaps on pagination keep it from a 5.

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% (no descriptions). The description explains 'base' with its enum options and implies 'termo' as the keyword. However, 'inicio' and 'tamanho' are not explained (likely pagination controls). This leaves two parameters ambiguous to the agent. The description compensates partially but not fully, so it is below average.

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 a textual keyword search over TCU jurisprudence, specifies the three base types, and details the return fields (title, summary, excerpts, etc.). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool tcu_acordaos_recentes (recent judgments) by emphasizing keyword search.

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 provides clear usage context by instructing the user to select a base and implies keyword search, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tcu_acordaos_recentes. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4.

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