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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the LGPD data controller role, the public nature of the data, and the payment requirement—useful behavioral disclosures beyond the 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 paragraph containing several pieces of information: the tool's purpose, the payment model, and LGPD compliance details. It's fairly concise but the structure mixes purpose with contractual notes, which could be separated for clarity. No waste, but order could be improved.

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 is relatively simple (process consultation), and annotations cover safety aspects, so the description needn't explain those. However, given that no output schema exists, the description doesn't mention what the response looks like or what data fields are returned. Still, it provides enough for a simple query tool with good annotations.

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%: the description doesn't explain how to use 'numero_processo' or 'grau' parameters. Since there are only 2 parameters and detailed format guidance is essential for a Brazilian legal process number, the lack of parameter info is a significant gap.

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 that this tool consults procedural information from the TRT11 tribunal, and names it a 'Consulta Processual'. While it doesn't detail the specific resource (e.g., list vs. detail), it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that cover authentication, connection, marketplace, and general toolkit functions.

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 includes usage context: it's paid per query with prepaid credit, hosted by the platform without platform credentials, and does not provide confidential data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention the 'grau' parameter for filtering, leaving some ambiguity about when to invoke this vs. other consultation tools.

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