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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints: queries are hosted, require no platform credentials, are paid per query, and only access non-confidential citizen-available data. It also discloses LGPD data-controller responsibilities, though it omits details about return format or pagination.

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 concise and well structured: three sentences, each adding distinct information about purpose, cost/access, and legal responsibility. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff.

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?

Given 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains cost and source but does not state which parameter combinations are valid, how results are returned, or whether pagination is needed.

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 11 string parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation of parameter meanings, combinations, or valid usage. The parameter names like cpf, cnpj, or processo are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no semantic value 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 identifies the tool as a query ('consulta') for TJSP first-instance judicial proceedings from an official source, with explicit mention of Brazilian official sources. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are platform-level utilities like authentication or marketplace.

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 use when one needs official TJSP first-degree case information and provides operational context such as prepaid credit and no platform credentials. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or compare against alternatives, though no comparable sibling query tools exist.

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