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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful behavior: paid per-query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials needed, official/non-confidential data source, and LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and adds external operational details in a relatively compact way. The legal and credit-related sentences are relevant context, though a short redundancy exists between 'consulta em fonte oficial' and the later reiteration of official sources.

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 simple two-parameter input and available annotations, the description covers purpose, source, payment, and legal context. However, it lacks any description of the input parameters, especially `grau`, and does not describe the expected output, so an agent still has noticeable uncertainty about how to compose a correct request.

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 offers no guidance on the `numero_processo` or `grau` parameters. While `consulta processual` implies a process number, the optional `grau` is ambiguous, and nothing explains expected formats, defaults, or how these parameters interact, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 opens with 'Consulta Processual' and clearly identifies the resource (TRT15 process) and scope (official source, Brazilian labor court records). It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info by naming the specific court and domain.

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?

It indicates this is the way to consult official Brazilian court data via the platform, with prepaid credits and no platform credentials. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X', but no sibling tool overlaps with this query capability, and the context strongly implies when it should be selected.

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