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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the data is official and non-confidential, the platform does not hold credentials, the user pays per query with credit, and the client is legally responsible under LGPD. This explains billing, legal restrictions and data sensitivity.

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 focused paragraph with front-loaded purpose ('Consulta Processual', official source) followed by relevant contextual details. Every sentence contributes meaning, though the LGPD sentence is legal boilerplate and could be shorter.

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 tool's complexity is low and annotations cover the risk profile. Description gives useful behavioral context, but the absence of param explanations is a real gap. The agent would likely need additional information about 'grau' and how the consultation result is returned.

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%. The description does not mention 'numero_processo' or 'grau' at all, leaving the meaning and format of these parameters completely unexplained. The agent has no guidance for filling the required field or the optional degree-level field.

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 immediately identifies a specific resource and action: 'Consulta Processual' via TRT9. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace by naming the official court source and the nature of the query.

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?

Provides clear context: the tool queries official Brazilian sources, is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, and uses pre-paid credits. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is specific enough.

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