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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description adds valuable context: payment via prepaid credit, no platform credentials required, data is non-confidential and identical to what citizens can access, and LGPD responsibility. This enriches the behavioral understanding 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 multiple sentences covering purpose, hosting, payment, legal aspects. While not excessively long, it is not front-loaded and includes legal disclaimers that could be streamlined. It is acceptable but 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 description covers purpose, payment, and legal context, but lacks parameter explanations and any details about return values (though no output schema exists). For a simple 2-parameter tool, it is moderately complete but leaves gaps in parameter semantics.

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 does not explain either parameter (grau or numero_processo). With 0% schema coverage, it should compensate by describing their purpose or format, but it fails to do so. The only hint is the tool name itself, 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 it is a consultation tool for TRT20 court processes, specifying the verb 'consultar' and the resource 'processo' from an official source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are generic platform utilities like authenticate or show_version.

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 on how to use the tool (prepaid credit, no platform credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings are unrelated, so no direct comparison is needed, but explicit usage guidance is missing.

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