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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the payment model (prepaid credits), absence of platform credentials, the public/non-secret nature of the data, and LGPD controller responsibility. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, containing three sentences of relevant information: purpose, operational context, and legal data handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, though it could be more structured.

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 has no output schema, yet the description does not describe the return format, pagination, or error behavior. It also lacks parameter details. While it covers cost, auth, and legal context well, the missing output and parameter information makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently use.

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 two parameters (grau, numero_processo) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain the meaning, format, or requiredness of these parameters, leaving the agent without the necessary semantics to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the tool performs a procedural consultation ('Consulta Processual') at TRT16, using an official source. It is specific about the resource (processos) and differentiates it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace.

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 gives practical operational context: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials needed, paid per query with prepaid credits. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but alternatives are not apparent among siblings.

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