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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable extra behavioral context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query via prepaid credit. It also clarifies data privacy and LGPD compliance. These disclosures go beyond the structured annotations and are useful for agents deciding on usage.

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 moderately concise but includes extraneous content about payment and LGPD that, while relevant, could be streamlined. It front-loads the main purpose but then spends several clauses on operational and legal caveats. The structure is acceptable but not tight; some sentences could be merged or removed without losing essential meaning.

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?

For a simple read-only query with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the tool's purpose and some operational context (payment, no credentials). However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., process details, parties, status) or any limitations (e.g., only public cases). Given the absence of an output schema, this gap leaves the agent uncertain about the data structure, reducing completeness.

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 one required parameter 'numero_processo' with no description (coverage 0%). The tool description does not elaborate on this parameter: it does not specify the expected format (e.g., CNJ standard), constraints, or examples. While the name suggests a process number, an agent may not know the exact legal format required for successful invocation. The description fails to compensate for the schema's minimal information.

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: 'Consulta Processual Unificada (Eproc)' at TJSP, a court process query. It explicitly names the resource (TJSP unified process) and the action (consult). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are generic platform operations (auth, connect, marketplace, etc.), by specifying the legal/process domain.

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 implies usage is for querying official TJSP process information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions beyond payment and data responsibility. There is no mention of when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the purpose, but not explicitly guided.

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