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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds relevant context beyond annotations: the paid-per-query nature, the lack of required platform credentials, the official-source nature, non-confidential status, and LGPD responsibilities. This is useful behavioral and commercial context.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with 'Consulta Processual'. It contains some redundant mentions of 'official source', but the extra details about cost, credentials, and LGPD all serve a purpose. It is concise enough for a tool description.

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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description lack essential detail about the query parameter 'grau' and what the output will look like. It gives adequate context about source, legality, and billing, but without parameter guidance or an output schema description, the overall completeness is only average.

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%; the description adds no information about either parameter. Though 'numero_processo' is traceable to a typical court case number, its format is not described, and 'grau' remains unexplained. The agent is left without any parameter-level guidance for invocation.

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 states a clear action: "Consulta Processual" in the specific official source "Tribunal TRT1". It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.) by naming the court and the query type.

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 some usage context: it is a paid query using prepaid credits, without platform credentials, and accesses official public data. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or conditions for when to avoid it.

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