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 meaningful operational context: payment model (prepaid credit), data classification (official, non-confidential), and LGPD data controller responsibility. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single efficient paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, but includes legal boilerplate about LGPD and data control. This is acceptable conciseness, though the legal disclaimer adds some length without affecting usability.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It lacks input guidance (e.g., which parameters are required, combos), expected output format, and error handling. The operational context helps but does not compensate for the missing invocation details.

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 zero explanation for the 7 parameters (cpf, oab, cnpj, oab_uf, processo, originario, parte_advogado). While some names are domain-specific, the description fails to clarify their meaning, required combinations, or usage, leaving the agent without adequate guidance for invocation.

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 function: 'Tribunal TRF5: Processo, consulta em fonte oficial' – a specific action (consult process) on a specific resource (TRF5 court). It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools (e.g., authenticate, show_version) which serve different purposes.

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 provides context: hosted on platform, prepaid credit, official source, LGPD responsibility. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor provides exclusion criteria. The usage is implied (for TRF5 process consultation) but no clear guidance on alternatives or conditions.

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