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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context about the data being public, the customer being the data controller under LGPD, and the prepaid credit model. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact paragraph with three sentences: the first states the core function, the second covers payment/hosting, and the third addresses data privacy. No filler, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose, payment, and data privacy but does not explain the return value format, the 'completo' flag, or error behavior. For a query tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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 names the main filter parameters (CPF, CNPJ, nome da parte, número do processo, grau, UF), which helps, but it does not explain the optional 'completo' parameter or provide value formats/constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds only marginal meaning beyond 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 verb 'Consulta' (queries) and the resource 'processos no Tribunal de Justiça estadual', also specifying the query dimensions (CPF, CNPJ, nome da parte, número do processo, grau, UF). This distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.).

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?

Provides clear context: no credentials needed, paid per query, and it is for public-access data only. It implicitly guides the agent to use this for court process lookups, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. Sibling tools are unrelated, so differentiation is less critical.

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