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 clear. The description adds valuable context: it's hosted by the platform, requires pre-paid credits per query, and clarifies data privacy (LGPD) responsibilities. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the commercial and legal 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 a single paragraph with three sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, hosting/payment model, and legal context. It's reasonably concise, though the legal disclaimer could be seen as slightly verbose 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema, no enums), the description covers the purpose and operational context (credits, official source) but lacks parameter semantics and usage examples. It's adequate for a simple query tool but leaves gaps in how to construct the query.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'numero_processo' is required but its format (e.g., CNJ standard) is not specified, and 'grau' is optional but its meaning (court level) is not clarified. The description adds no parameter-level detail, leaving the agent to guess.

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's purpose: 'Consulta Processual' for Tribunal TRT21, indicating it queries official sources for case information. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the tribunal and the type of query, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other consultation tools.

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 implies usage for consulting official Brazilian court data, mentioning it's the same info available to citizens and not confidential. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and doesn't mention prerequisites like having credits or the required 'numero_processo' format.

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