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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-use with prepaid credit, data is not confidential, and LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the operational and legal behavior.

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 reasonably concise, opening with a clear 'TRT6: Consulta Processual' statement. It includes necessary context about cost and data control, though the LGPD sentence could be tightened. Overall, it earns its place without being verbose.

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 simple read-only query tool with two parameters and clear annotations, the description covers key aspects: official source, cost, credentials, and data sensitivity. It does not describe return format, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a consult operation, this is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description does not explain the parameters. It does not elaborate on 'numero_processo' (though implied by the tool name) or 'grau', leaving the optional 'grau' parameter ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 performs a 'Consulta Processual' at 'Tribunal TRT6', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by focusing on process consultation in official Brazilian sources.

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 that it queries official sources without platform credentials and costs prepaid credit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied for consulting TRT6 process data, but no comparative guidance is given.

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