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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral and compliance context beyond those annotations: prepaid per-query billing, no platform credentials, official/citizen-accessible data, non-secret information, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities.

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 and front-loaded: it states the tribunal and purpose first, then payment and access context, then data sensitivity and compliance. Every sentence adds distinct information without redundancy.

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 purpose, cost, credentials, data type, and compliance, which is good for a simple query tool. However, with five optional parameters and no output schema or parameter guidance, the description leaves functional usage unclear, so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (cpf, oab, cnpj, nome, numero_processo). There is no guidance on which combinations are valid, whether any parameter is required, or how search criteria interact, leaving the agent to rely solely on self-explanatory property names.

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 is for consulting TJRJ (eproc) processes from an official source, with a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('Processo eproc'). It is easily distinguished from unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug.

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 useful context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and charges prepaid credit per query. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose tribunal query tool.

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