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 safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires prepaid credits, is hosted by the platform without platform credentials, and notes the client's responsibilities under LGPD. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies operational requirements.

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 relatively compact, consisting of four sentences that front-load the core purpose. It includes necessary operational details (payment, hosting) and LGPD considerations without excessive verbosity. It is well-structured but could be slightly more concise by merging some legal/privacy notes, yet it remains efficient.

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 tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description is expected to clarify the meaning of the parameters and possibly the return format. It does neither. 'grau' is unexplained, and there is no hint of what the response contains. The description also fails to mention that 'numero_processo' is required, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. This incomplete guidance makes the tool hard to use effectively.

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%, meaning the description provides zero explanation of the parameters 'grau' and 'numero_processo'. The only clue is the parameter names, which may be self-explanatory for a Portuguese-speaking user, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This is a significant gap for a tool with two parameters, especially since 'grau' is ambiguous.

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 it is a 'Consulta Processual' (procedural consultation) for TRT19, indicating a read-only retrieval of case information from an official source. It also clarifies that it consults public data from Brazilian official bodies, distinguishing it from potential confidential tools. However, it lacks explicit details on what specific case information is returned, so it stops short of a 5.

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 context about when to use the tool by mentioning it consults official Brazilian sources and is pay-per-use, implying it's for legitimate case lookups. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling tools are unrelated. This gives basic usage context but lacks clear explicit guidance.

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