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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: hosted platform, credential-free access, prepaid payment requirement, official non-confidential data source, and LGPD controller responsibility. No contradiction.

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 text is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, adding payment and legal context in a compact paragraph. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence adds relevant information.

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 no output schema and 5 optional-looking parameters with no descriptions, the description leaves important gaps: it does not state what inputs are valid, whether at least one is required, or what the response contains. It covers cost and legal aspects, but not invocation correctness.

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 input schema has 5 properties with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter, format, or combination rules. Although names like cpf and numero_processo are suggestive, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema property names, so it fails to compensate for low coverage.

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 TRF6 process consultation against an official source, with a specific verb ('consultar' in the name and 'consulta' in text). It differentiates it from unrelated siblings like authenticate or marketplace, though it could state 'consultar processo judicial' more explicitly.

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 useful context: official source, no platform credentials, prepaid credit per query, and LGPD data control. It implies this is for legitimate citizen-available queries but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.

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