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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the pay-per-consultation cost, lack of platform credentials, and the guarantee that data is not confidential. It also clarifies the data source (official Brazilian bodies), but does not detail error handling or response format.

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 verbose and includes redundant legal disclaimers (LGPD) and repetitive phrases about official sources. It could be shortened significantly without losing essential information, making it less concise than ideal.

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 sparse schema (only two parameters and no output definition), the description does not sufficiently cover what the tool returns or how the parameters interact. While it provides context about the data being non-confidential, it lacks details on expected results or usage edge cases.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters 'grau' or 'numero_processo', and the schema includes no individual descriptions. There is no indication of what values are valid or how they affect the consultation.

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 'Consulta Processual' (process consultation) for TRT18, indicating it retrieves official court process information. It also clarifies that it is a paid service via prepaid credits, making the core 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions it works without platform credentials, but fails to specify appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. No alternatives are referenced.

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