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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is hosted by the platform ('Hospedado pela plataforma'), requires no platform credentials, incurs a per-query cost ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago'), and deals only with non-confidential public data ('não é dado sigiloso'). It also clarifies data controller responsibilities under LGPD. This extends 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?

The description is a single paragraph in Portuguese, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. Each additional sentence adds relevant context (hosting, billing, data source, legal compliance). It is slightly verbose with legal boilerplate but not excessive. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, billing implications, and legal responsibilities. However, it omits parameter semantics and any detail about the response format. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but leaves the agent without crucial usage guidance like parameter formats and return expectations.

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%, so the description should compensate for the bare parameter names and types. It does not mention 'numero_processo' or 'grau' at all, nor their format or optionality. While the parameter names are self-explanatory to a human, the description fails to clarify, for example, what 'grau' means or acceptable formats for the process number. The burden is not met.

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 'Consulta Processual' (procedural consultation) and specifies 'consulta em fonte oficial' (query in official source), identifying the resource (court cases) and action (query). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, marketplace, etc.). However, it does not explicitly describe what information is returned, so it stops short of full specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use for case status' or 'do not use for sealed records'. The additional context about hosting, payment, and LGPD compliance does not address selection criteria. There is no explicit usage direction beyond the tool's existence.

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