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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds essential behavior: pay-per-query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials, official non-confidential source, and LGPD responsibility. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four sentences, each adding relevant value: purpose, hosting/credentials, data nature, and LGPD. Slightly wordy but well-structured with the operation stated first. No redundant filler.

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 safety, cost, and data origin, but lacks guidance on which parameters to use, whether any is required, return format, or pagination. Given the read-only annotations and no output schema, some gaps remain but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no meaning or usage guidance for the five parameters (cpf, oab, cnpj, nome_parte, numero_processo). It does not explain whether they are alternatives, required, or formatted. The description fails to compensate for the missing 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's verb and resource: 'consulta em fonte oficial' for 'Processo (eproc)' at 'Tribunal TRF2'. It distinguishes from generic platform siblings (authenticate, connect, marketplace) by specifying the exact court and process type.

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?

Usage is implied: use when querying TRF2 eproc process information. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor mention of alternative tools, as none exist among siblings.

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