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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the payment model ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), the fact that no platform credentials are needed, the non-confidential nature of the data ('não é dado sigiloso'), and LGPD compliance responsibilities. These details meaningfully enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's operational and legal behavior.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The remaining sentences add valuable context about hosting, credentials, payment, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility. It is slightly dense but every sentence earns its place.

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 covers the tool's source, access model, payment, data confidentiality, and legal liability, which is quite complete for a read-only consultation tool. However, it does not describe the output format or clarify how the five optional parameters should be combined, leaving a minor gap given that no output schema is provided.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description provides no parameter-level guidance, such as which identifiers are required, whether they are alternatives or complementary, or formatting expectations. The parameter names (cpf, cnpj, nome_parte, nome_advogado, numero_processo) are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 performs a consultation ('consulta') of judicial processes at the TJMG court using an official source ('Tribunal TJMG: Processo, consulta em fonte oficial'). This is a specific verb + resource pair, and the purpose is unambiguous despite the lack of sibling judicial tools to differentiate from.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it accesses official Brazilian public data, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated platform utilities, so no direct alternative guidance is necessary.

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