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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'consulta' is consistent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies payment requirements, clarifies that the data is official and non-confidential, and notes the client's LGPD responsibility. These details enrich the behavioral profile 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 a single paragraph with several clauses covering purpose, hosting, payment, and legal disclaimers. It is front-loaded with the primary intent, but the legal and payment details add length. While not overly verbose, it could be more concise by separating essential usage info from disclaimers. Still, it's reasonably 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the response will contain, such as case details, status, or parties. It also lacks information on error handling, limitations, or expected result format. Given the tool's purpose and lack of an output schema, this is a significant gap that prevents full understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the description does not compensate by explaining 'numero_processo' (process number) or 'grau' (degree). The description only mentions 'Consulta Processual' but gives no hints about parameter formats, required vs optional usage, or examples. This leaves the agent to infer from the tool name, which is insufficient.

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 this is a procedural consultation for TRT17 in an official source. The tool name and first sentence ('Tribunal TRT17: Consulta Processual, consulta em fonte oficial') distinguish it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.). It could be more specific about what the consultation returns, but the core purpose is 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 mentions practical details like payment (pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago) and that no platform credentials are needed, which implies conditions for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Since there are no sibling tools for tribunal queries, the usage context is implied but not clearly articulated.

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