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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, non-destructive), the description adds transparency about the data being non-confidential and publicly available, and mentions LGPD compliance and data controller responsibilities. This provides additional behavioral insight.

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 concise, consisting of a few sentences that convey the essential purpose and key usage conditions without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and to the point.

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, payment, credentials, and data sensitivity, but it does not explain what 'grau' means or what the output will look like (no output schema is present). This leaves some gaps for a new user, but the core context is provided.

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 no descriptions for the parameters 'numero_processo' and 'grau'. The description does not explain these fields either, leaving their meaning and valid values unclear. Even though the names are somewhat intuitive, there is no explicit guidance.

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 for consulting court processes ('Consulta Processual') from an official source. It is distinct from the sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which have different functions.

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 some usage context (requires prepaid credit, no platform credentials) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or specify when to prefer this tool over others. It implies a pay-per-query model but lacks direct guidance.

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