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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description complements this by adding details about the platform-hosted nature, lack of credentials, prepaid credit, and LGPD compliance. It does not contradict annotations and provides valuable context about the operational model and data responsibility.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose but then packs in billing and legal disclaimers. While not overly long, the compliance and cost details could be condensed or moved to a separate field, so it earns an adequate but not exceptional score.

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 tool has five optional parameters and no output schema, so the description needed to clarify selection logic and basic expectations. It fails to mention that at least one identifier is required or what kind of data is returned, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation despite the presence of annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to explain how to use the five parameters (cpf, oab, cnpj, nome, numero_processo), but it does not mention any of them. The description neither clarifies which parameters are needed nor whether at least one is required, leaving the agent to guess—failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose: 'Processo, consulta em fonte oficial' (Process query from official source), identifying the resource (judicial processes from TJSC) and the action (consulta/query). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the tribunal and source, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 notes that no platform credentials are required and that it is pay-per-query, which offers some context, but it fails to specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, required parameter combinations, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'.

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