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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral details: it involves a cost (prepaid credits), accesses official public data, and clarifies data privacy responsibilities under LGPD. This fully discloses the operational consequences.

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 moderately lengthy but packs essential information about the service, payment, and legal compliance. It could be trimmed slightly, but every sentence adds value, so it remains concise relative to its content.

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 description covers purpose and behavioral aspects, but it omits details on parameter semantics and the structure of the output. Given the minimal schema (no descriptions) and lack of output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for a user to fully understand the tool's usage.

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 description does not explain the two required parameters, 'grau' and 'numero_processo'. While the tool name implies process lookup, the specific meanings and expected formats of these inputs are not described, leaving users to infer from schema alone.

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 is for procedural consultation at TRT14 court, using an official source. It specifies that it is a read-only query for official information, making the purpose 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 provides usage context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and operates on a prepaid credit system. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but it conveys when and how to use it, earning a high score.

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