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 covered. The description adds valuable context: it's hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, uses prepaid credits, and clarifies data privacy (LGPD) and that data is not confidential. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the operational and legal context, which is useful for the agent.

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 but contains multiple pieces of information: purpose, source, hosting, payment, data privacy. It's relatively concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured, and some sentences (like the LGPD note) might be considered extra but are relevant for compliance. Overall, it's efficient with no fluff.

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, source, payment, and legal context. However, it lacks parameter details (especially 'grau') and doesn't describe the return format or any limitations. Since there's no output schema, the description should provide more on what the response contains, but it doesn't. It's adequate but with gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'numero_processo' implicitly by saying 'consulta processual', but it doesn't explain the format or semantics of the parameters. 'grau' is not mentioned at all. With two parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's property names, which are not self-explanatory (especially 'grau').

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 procedural information from TRT7 (Brazilian labor court) in an official source. It specifies the resource (processo) and the action (consultar), and distinguishes it from generic tools by naming the tribunal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like other tribunal consult tools, but given the sibling list provided (which are generic platform tools), it stands out clearly.

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 context: it's for consulting official Brazilian sources, and it mentions payment via prepaid credits, which is a usage condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment model. The context is clear but not fully explicit about when not to use it.

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