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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: the query is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid per query with prepaid credit, and does not return confidential data. It does not, however, describe response structure, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose: 'Tribunal TRF3: Consulta Pública, consulta em fonte oficial.' It is a single run-on sentence that mixes purpose, payment, and legal caveats, but each clause adds relevant context without excessive verbosity.

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 no output schema, no required parameters, and no parameter descriptions, so the description carries the full burden of guiding invocation. It covers source legitimacy, payment, and data governance, but omits how to choose parameters, whether combinations are allowed, and what the response looks like, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 mentions none of the five parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome_parte, nome_advogado, numero_processo). It also fails to clarify that all parameters are optional and whether at least one is required. The description provides no parameter-level meaning beyond what the parameter names themselves suggest.

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 public consultation against the official TRF3 source, using a specific verb ('consultar') and naming the resource ('Tribunal TRF3: Consulta Pública'). It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools such as authenticate or report_bug, though it could be more explicit about exactly what court information is returned.

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 the tool is for querying official public Brazilian data available to citizens and emphasizes that the client is responsible for legitimate purpose under LGPD. It does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the context is enough for a basic read-only query tool.

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