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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true, covering the safe read nature. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the payment model ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), states that data is not confidential ('não é dado sigiloso'), and outlines the client's data controller responsibility under LGPD. This provides valuable additional transparency.

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, a single paragraph of roughly 40 words, with the purpose front-loaded. It includes essential legal and cost disclaimers without excessive verbosity. However, the structure is a bit flat, mixing purpose with compliance statements, but still efficient.

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 the tool has 11 parameters, none required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned, typical query patterns, or which parameters are needed for different scenarios. The legal and cost context is useful, but the lack of output and usage guidance leaves an agent without enough information to craft effective queries.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters. While parameter names like 'cpf', 'cnpj', 'numero_processo' are self-explanatory, there is no guidance on which parameters are required, how they combine, or expected formats. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, offering no added semantic value for the parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Tribunal TRF3: Processo, consulta em fonte oficial' which clearly identifies the resource (TRF3 processes) and the action (consultation). It is distinct from sibling tools which are unrelated (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives context that the tool is for consulting official Brazilian sources, mentions prepaid credit and LGPD compliance, and implicitly indicates usage for TRF3 case lookup. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, there are no related sibling tools, so the context is adequate for an agent to infer when to use it.

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