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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description adds behavioral context: hosted by the platform, no credentials required, payment per consultation, and data privacy responsibilities under LGPD. This enriches the user's understanding of operational and compliance aspects.

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 somewhat redundant, repeating the idea of 'official source' and 'consultation' multiple times. It also includes legal disclaimers that lengthen the text without adding immediate operational value. While not overly long, it could be more concise.

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 the tool's purpose, source, payment, and data privacy, but omits any explanation of the input parameters or expected output. Given the absence of an output schema, return values are not required, but parameter clarification would enhance completeness.

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 schema has two parameters ('grau' and 'numero_processo'), but the description provides no explanation of their meaning, format, or usage. With 0% parameter coverage in the description, it fails to compensate or clarify, leaving users to infer from parameter names alone.

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: consulting legal processes at TRT2 (Tribunal Regional do Trabalho). It uses the verb 'consultar' and specifies the resource 'processo' and the court, distinguishing it from unrelated sibling 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 legal sources but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over others. It mentions payment with prepaid credit, but lacks clear guidance on alternative tools or specific scenarios.

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